Community Devleopment Corporation in Texas:Finding Energy Efficient and Green Building Alternatives

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

Community Development Corporations in Texas:

Finding Energy-Efficient and Green Building Alternatives

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS " www.tacdc.org

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Community Development Corporations in Texas:

Finding Energy-Efficient and Green Building Alternatives

About the Texas Association of Community Development Corporations (TACDC) The Texas Association of Community Development Corporations (TACDC) is a non-profit statewide membership association of Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and related non-profit, government, and for-profit entities engaged in producing affordable housing and community economic development.

Community Development Corporations in Texas: Finding Energy-Efficient and Green Building Alternatives was produced with the help of many individuals and organizations. The acknowledgement page highlights those who helped in the research and production of the report. Although we could not name each and every contributor, we want to thank every one who was involved for making this report possible.

TACDC’S MISSION TACDC improves the lives of low- and moderate-income Texans by strengthening the capacity of community development organizations that create and preserve homes, jobs, small businesses and other community assets by advocating for a supportive environment at the local, state, and federal levels; and, by generating resources and relationships that enhance and sustain the community development industry in Texas.

2

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Acknowledgements Research Yuhayna McCoy

Supervisor Martha Brown

Photographs Yuhayna McCoy

Layout Kari Banta Yvonne Dawson

Acknowledgements Robin Bradford, Foundation Communities Robert Calvillo, TACDC Research Committee Chair Regina Copic, City of Austin, S.M.A.R.T. Housing Catherine Lee Doar, Austin Habitat For Humanity Isaías Garza, CDC of Brownsville Michael Gatto, Foundation Communities Rich McMath, City of Austin, Green Building Program Maureen McNaulty, Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing Nick Mitchell-Bennett, CDC of Brownsville Elizabeth Mueller, PhD, University of Texas Michael Oden, PhD, University of Texas Dick Peterson, City of Austin, Green Building Program Juan Ramírez, CDC of Brownsville Gordon Tully, Steven Winter and Associates, Inc.

Special Thanks TACDC Board of Directors 2003-2004 TACDC Research Committee: Robert Calvillo (Chair), Paul Charles, Fred Huerta, Nick Mitchell-Bennett, Rogelio Santos, Tom Wilkinson and Sandra Williams ©2004 Texas Association of Community Development Corporations

For additional copies, please contact:

1021 East 7th Street, Suite 104 Austin, Texas 78702-3128 (512) 457-8232 + (512) 479-4090 Fax info@tacdc.org + www.tacdc.org

33

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Table of Contents 1.

INTRODUCTION ................................................. 6

2.

METHODOLOGY ................................................ 6

6.

CASE STUDY 1: ENERGY-EFFICIENT HOME, CAMERON PARK, TX .............................................. 14 6.1 Project Background ............................................. 14 6.2 Specific Design and Materials ............................ 18 6.2.1 Windows ........................................................ 18 6.2.2 Insulation ....................................................... 18 6.2.3 Framing .......................................................... 19 6.2.4 HVAC ............................................................. 20 6.2.5 Ventilation ...................................................... 20 6.2.6 Roofing .......................................................... 21 6.2.7 Water Efficiency: PEX Tubbing ....................... 21 6.2.8 Additional Tools Used .................................... 21 6.2.9 Evaluation Method ......................................... 21 6.3 Challenges, Solutions and Future Project ..............

Suggestions ........................................................ 23

3.

TERMINOLOGY & BUILDING CODES .............. 6 3.1 Sustainability ................................................. 6 3.2 Green Building .............................................. 7 3.3 Energy-Efficient Building .............................. 7 3.4 Building Codes ............................................. 7

4.

CONSTRUCTION ............................................... 8 4.1 Design ........................................................... 8 4.1.1 Integrated Design Process ....................... 9 4.1.2 Reduced Material Use ............................. 9 4.1.3 Site Selection ........................................... 9 4.1.4 Accessibility .............................................. 9 4.1.5 Stormwater Management .......................... 9 4.1.6 Building Orientation .................................. 9 4.1.7 HVAC ........................................................ 9 4.1.8 Ventilation ................................................. 9 4.1.9 Ductwork .................................................. 9 4.1.10 Air Leakage .............................................. 9 4.1.11 Insulation .................................................. 10 4.1.12 Windows ................................................... 10 4.1.13 Lighting ..................................................... 10 4.1.14 Appliances ................................................ 10 4.1.15 Water Conservation ................................. 10 4.1.16 Landscape ................................................ 10 4.2 Materials ........................................................ 10 4.2.1 Structural Materials ................................... 10 4.2.2 Patios ........................................................ 10 4.2.3 Plumbing Fixtures ..................................... 10 4.2.4 Toilets ........................................................ 10 4.2.5 Concrete .................................................... 11 4.2.6 Paint .......................................................... 11 4.2.7 Roofing ...................................................... 11 4.2.8 Particle Board ............................................ 11 4.3 Alternative Building Techniques ................... 11 4.3.1 Straw-Bale Construction .......................... 11 4.3.2 Rammed Earth Construction (Adobe) ..... 11 4.3.3 Optimum Value Engineering (OVE) .......... 11 4.3.4 Structural Insulated Panels (SIP) ............. 11 4.3.5 Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF) ............... 11

7.

CASE STUDY 2: ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN .

BUILDING COMMUNITY, AUSTIN, TX ..................... 24 7.1 Project Background ............................................. 24 7.2 Project Expenditures and Financing .................. 28 7.3 Energy-Efficient and Green Building Design and ..

Materials .............................................................. 29 7.3.1 Windows ........................................................ 29 7.3.2 Fans ............................................................... 29 7.3.3 Insulation ....................................................... 29 7.3.4 Thermostat ..................................................... 29 7.3.5 Paint ............................................................... 29 7.3.6 HVAC ............................................................. 29 7.3.7 Stormwater Management .............................. 29 7.3.8 Water Efficiency: Detention Pond .................. 30 7.3.9 Quality of Life ................................................. 30 7.4 Challenges, Solutions and Future Project ..............

Suggestions ........................................................ 30

8.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 32

END NOTES ...................................................................... 33 Appendix A: Energy-Efficient and Green Building Programs 35 Appendix B: Energy-Efficient and Green Building Training Opportunities ..................................................................... 36

5.

EVALUATING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING TECHNIQUES ................................... 12 5.1 Methods for Measuring Energy Efficiency and Green Building Techniques .......................... 12 5.2 Cost and Benefit: Approaches to Evaluation13

Appendix C: Energy-Efficient and Green Building Financing and Evaluation Resources ...........................

37

Appendix D: Energy-Efficient and Green Building General Website Resources ........................................................ 38 Appendix E: City of Austin’s Green Building Checklist .... 39

4

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Community Development Corporations in Texas:

Finding Energy-Efficient and Green Building Alternatives Executive Summary

large portion of the construction has been conducted by the young men and women enrolled in the Youthbuild program managed by CDCB.

In the summer of 2003, the TACDC Research Committee expressed interest in exploring construction alternatives using green and energy-efficient materials and methods available to affordable housing developers. The focus was not only to find out about green building technology but to explore how the application of these methods would result in savings for tenants in Texas. The findings of this report indicate that there are methods of green building and energy-efficient construction that do not have any upfront costs and generate savings for the tenants in the long term. However, the Community Development Corporations (CDCs) in both of the case studies presented here required funding from the government or alternative sources in order to integrate substantial energy-efficient and/or green building construction methods.

The construction trends in the affordable housing industry are toward introducing energy-efficient technologies by making minor modifications to some of the methods already used, applying changes to prototype housing, and introducing energy-efficient appliances or heating and ventilation systems.

The industry is not currently inclined to employ new materials or build completely new models of homes. Some of the lessons learned by the CDCs centered around the themes of team communication, cost of learning new technologies, setting goals and project scope, as well as other lessons discussed at the end of each case study.

In October 2002, CDCB was approached by the HUDadministered program Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) to participate in this energy-efficient initiative by integrating certain techniques into the construction of the colonia houses. Through this program CDCB received technical assistance from a PATH contractor, Steven Winter Associates, Inc. The goal in designing this house was to explore the possibility of building an energy-efficient home for at least the same cost as the standard colonia home being built by the CDCB. The house’s energy-efficient features include Low-E double-glazed windows, upgraded framing details, higher insulation in walls and roof, an Air Conditioning (AC) system right-sized and upgraded using Manual-J calculation, and PEX tubing for plumbing system. In addition, certain design features were included in the roof to simplify framing and give the house a more impressive appearance. As of the publication date of this report, the framing and roof of the house have been completed and plumbing and electrical are installed.

Case Study 2: Energy-Efficient and Green Building Community, Austin, Texas

Additional research needs to be focused on collecting information available on construction methods and materials used in particular climatic zones in Texas, and methods used to evaluate costs of materials versus savings in homes.

In 2001, Foundation Communities, a non-profit organization providing affordable housing in the Austin area for over 19 years, constructed Southwest Trails, a 160 unit affordable and energy-efficient community. This community obtained the highest ranking so far, for an energy efficiency and green building multi-family affordable community participating in the Safe, Mixed-Income, Accessible, Reasonably Priced, and Transit-Oriented (S.M.A.R.T.) housing initiative from the City of Austin. Several layers of funding were obtained from sources such as tax credits, city, state and private funds. Half of the units are rented to residents who are at 50% of the Area Median Family Income (AMFI) and the other eighty units to residents who are at the 60% AMFI level.

Case Study 1: Energy-Efficient Home, Cameron Park, Texas The Community Development Corporation of Brownsville (CDCB) is currently building a 3 bedroom, 1 bath affordable energy-efficient home in Cameron Park, in Brownsville, Texas.

Part of CDCB’s mission is to create affordable housing opportunities and provide quality construction and efficient home design for the community. To accomplish this goal CDCB has developed and implemented the Rural and Colonia Loan Program (RCLP) for low-income families in the colonias. The house was financed through a RCLP low interest loan and a zero percent loan provided by the CDCB. The lot for this house belongs to a family who, over several years, built their home on the back portion of their land in the colonia area. A

This project included features such as: increased insulation, Low-E double-glazed windows, hydronic water heaters, and programmable thermostats. In addition to its green features, this community provides support to its residents through afterschool programs for children and computer access for adults.

55

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

1. Introduction

in the future but are not presented here.

The case studies were chosen as current examples of how CDCs in Texas are attempting to introduce green building and energy-efficient practices into their construction. Knowledge of the case study in Brownsville, Texas came from discussions with the TACDC Research Committee and Martha Brown, TACDC’s Manager for Research and Training. The CDCB was chosen because of its significant and unique work; CDCB develops single- family houses on the U.S.-Mexico border for very-low income families in an area with a high poverty rate for individuals. The Austin case study was chosen because the city has a nationally recognized Green Building Program that is linked to its S.M.A.R.T. housing initiative. This multifamily project was evaluated through the S.M.A.R.T. housing initiative which requires that projects have at least a one-star rating under the Green Building Program.

Green building and energy-efficient construction techniques, materials and practices are beneficial for the environment and, at the same time, provide a cost-savings to homeowners or renters. Using these practices, energy is used more efficiently to heat and cool the home which results in a lower energy bill.

CDCs across the nation recognize the potential benefits of green building and energy efficiency, but the challenge lies in finding ways to integrate these practices into housing for low-income households while maintaining affordability. This report is designed to help CDCs evaluate the potential of common green building and energy-efficient practices in the affordable housing field.

This report is divided into eight sections; the next section of the report outlines the methodology used to collect the information on this topic. The third section briefly discusses terminology associated with energy efficiency and green building, as well as the national and state initiatives and codes associated with this subject. The fourth section describes green building design, materials and techniques with a particular emphasis on design and construction principles which can be integrated into the housing development process at low or no cost. The fifth section highlights some of the methods used to evaluate energy efficiency and green building construction. The sixth and seventh sections describe two case studies conducted for this report. The first is a singlefamily energy-efficient home being constructed by the Community Development Corporation of Brownsville (CDCB) with the technical support from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH). The second is a multi-family, green building community built in Austin under the S.M.A.R.T. Housing initiative. The Appendices (A, B and C) contain a compilation of website resources including information on programs, training, financing, and evaluation methods. These websites serve as a guide to basic information on this topic, however, TACDC does not endorse products or services provided by these sites.

At the end of each case study, a section titled Challenges, Solutions and Future Project Suggestions gives insight into the projects based on interviews, e-mail exchanges, or phone conversations with various members of the CDCs or other individuals involved in the projects. This section also provides important information from the U.S. Census, relevant literature, applicable discussions from meetings and conferences related to construction as well as policy issues on affordable housing.

Although the case studies presented reflect some of the trends in the industry in Texas (i.e. preferring energy- efficient methods over green building methods, using government or city programs as funding vehicles, and attempting to decrease upfront costs) these cases are not to be perceived as completely representative of CDCs’ construction methods. For example, the drier and sunnier climates in areas such as El Paso and Lubbock, allow for alternative methods of construction such as adobe construction, passive solar homes, or insulating concrete forms. Morover, the lack of information regarding cost analysis in the case studies presented and in general, is disappointing and perhaps adds to the apprehensive attitude of developers toward integrating these technologies.

3. Terminology & Building Codes

2. Methodology

There are specific terms which are used to describe environmentally sensitive methods and materials. These terms include, but are not limited to, sustainability, green building, and energy efficiency.

Information for this report was primarily gathered from city green building programs, federal agencies, national organizations, literature on the subjects, the Internet, past case studies and individuals involved in the two case studies conducted for this analysis. A compilation of secondary data informed the background research of current green building and energy-efficient practices; however, the information presented on this report is limited to those practices and materials identified as affordable. There are two limitations to this approach. First, some products are identified as affordable by the manufacturers themselves, and may, in practice, be more expensive. Second, there may be costly products and techniques currently available which may become affordable

3.1 Sustainability According to the United Nations World Commission on the Environment and Development, sustainable development is “meeting our present needs without compromising the needs of future generations.”1 Sustainable development, as

6

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

building and energy efficiency; these should be kept in mind through the analysis of the case studies.

described by the UN, can be fostered at the local, national and international levels and can be applied to an array of development issues such as urban sprawl, economic development, green building, energy conservation, pollution, and biodiversity. Sustainability is dependent on the resources available to specific communities. Sustainable building design is defined by the efficient use of materials, including water and energy, in the design and construction of a building such that it results in a healthy and productive environment, both inside and outside of the structure. The State of California, for example, as part of their sustainable design plan, has outlined some key elements of sustainable design: proximity to public transportation and affordable housing, promotion of economic renewal, consideration of building design that maximizes resource (water, energy and materials) efficiency and improvement of indoor quality.2

In 1999, President Clinton issued the ‘Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management’ Executive Order which required the Department of Defense (USDOD), the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of Energy (USDOE) to provide sustainable design training to their staff. The GSA requires the use of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED™) Green Building Rating System for all new buildings starting in 2001. It is important to clarify that LEED has government and commercial building standards, however no residential standards have been developed as of the publication date of this report.

In 2001, Texas Senate Bill (SB) 5 ‘Texas Building Energy Performance Standards’ passed. This bill adopted the International Residential Code (IRC) energy-efficient standards for residential single-family homes and town homes, and adopted the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for all other residential, commercial, and industrial construction. Sections of the bill address the following:5 • Adoption of energy-efficient performance standards; • Enforcement of energy standards outside of the municipality; • Distribution of information and technical assistance; • Development of home energy ratings; • Energy Efficiency programs in certain political subdivisions; • State Energy Conservation Office Evaluation; • Prohibition of less stringent local ammendments.

3.2 Green Building The principles of sustainability are to be expressed and applied in the green building process. Green building, as defined by the U.S. Green Building Council, refers to a series of land-use, construction, and design practices which reduce or eliminate the negative impact that buildings can have on occupants and on the environment. Green building is a holistic approach that takes into account the environment and the way in which individuals interact with it. The areas of focus for green building are: sustainable site planning, water protection, water and energy efficiency, renewable energy, conservation of materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality.3

3.3 Energy-Efficient Building

In 2002, Texas Senate Bill (SB) 365 passed; it explained that except for work begun or agreed to before January 1, 2002, residential construction, alteration, or repair inside city limits would have to meet the IRC and the National Electrical Code.

Action to implement the law must have been taken by cities before January 1, 2002. In addition, this bill amended the Insurance Code to authorize the Commissioner of Insurance to make changes to the IRC in specific geographic areas of Texas.

Energy-efficient building is centered on the conservation of energy and the construction and maintenance of a residence or office space. Energy efficiency implies that energy is saved and can translate into savings for the consumer or occupant.

Renewable energy is another term that may be mentioned in relation to energy efficiency. The sources of renewable energy, which are inexhaustible, are the sun, wind, and the heat from the Earth. Techniques are being developed to harness solar energy for heating, lighting, cooling and electricity. Wind can be used to power turbines and generate power. 4 In addition, design can maximize solar heat and natural wind ventilation for the individual home heating and cooling.

Effective February 1st, 2003, the Commissioner of Insurance adopted the structural provisions of the 2000 Edition of the IRC and the 2000 Edition of the International Building Code (IBC). Furthermore, the Commissioner adopted the ‘Texas Revisions’ outlining national design specifications, wood frame construction, windstorm, and hail building code standards for Texas. According to the Windstorm Inspection program, “the new building specifications are applicable to structures constructed, repaired, or to which additions are made on or after February 1st, 2003, in the designated catastrophe areas along the Texas coast for which the Texas Wind Insurance Association provides coverage.” 6

3.4 Building Codes The philosophy and initiatives associated with green building and energy efficiency set a framework for the decisions and the programs that are supported at the national and state levels. This section briefly cites the guidance and codes in the U.S. and Texas related to green

77

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

4. Construction

• •

There are several methods used to make a home energyefficient. A strong emphasis is placed on the pre-design and design phases, since there are ample opportunities at these stages to introduce low- or no-cost features that will reduce the use of energy in a structure. In addition, energy efficiency can be achieved through the use of systems or appliances that reduce costs in the long term. Finally, energy-efficient materials, building techniques and modes of living which provide affordability and improve sustainability have been identified.

• •

Both the Austin Green Building and the USDOE approaches stress the importance not only of the design and materials, but also of the planning process and post-construction maintenance. To emphasize the importance of the planning process, the USDOE and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) recommend the following Environmental Design Guidelines during the pre-design phase of development:

The first subsection of this section outlines the design practices recommended by different organizations. The second subsection focuses on the materials and appliances that have been identified as energy-efficient and affordable.

The third subsection addresses the building techniques or materials used to construct the house envelope. It is important to keep in mind that a holistic approach as well as a combination of design, materials and construction will result in higher energy efficiency.

• • • •

The Green Building program in Austin, Texas outlines the major areas of focus in constructing a green building as the following: energy, materials, water, health and safety, community, and maintenance. This program stresses green building as a process which begins at the planning stages of the given project. The program lists of basic steps for green building that result in energy savings. These steps as outlined in Green by Design: Steps to Green Building7 published by the Austin Green Building Program are:

•

Establish a vision statement; Tie goals to the vision statement; Determine green design criteria; Set priorities for the project design criteria.

In order to establish a vision statement and goals for the project, the builder or the decision-maker needs to know the standard or rating that will be used to measure the goals. The U.S. Green Building and LEED rating system for commercial and government buildings, the Energy Star program rating for homes and appliances, or others are available. Each have specific measurement and goal requirements. These programs usually have the equipment and the specialists who will evaluate the energy efficiency in a building or a home. It is also important to review standards and codes that are mandated by the state and by the climatic, soil and environmental conditions of the local area. In addition, it is important to conduct research on laws and standards of energy efficiency (see the Appendices C and D).

4.1 Design

• • • • • •

Plan and finance your project with energy efficiency and sustainability in mind; Design, construct, and renovate your highperformance building using the “whole-building approach” (defined below) and design tools; Choose building components that use the latest in energy-efficient technologies and practices; Operate and maintain your building to get the most out of your energy dollars.

Assess your needs; Form a team; Design for your conditions; Choose Green materials; Choose the right mechanical materials; Get the maximum benefits from your site and landscape; Test and maintain.

During the design phase, a construction program should be developed in which the building is considered both as a whole and in room-by-room detail. The literature often refers to the Whole-Building Design which implies that the building will be designed considering air quality, site, energy, natural resources, materials, acoustics and how these elements relate to each other and work together efficiently. Building design also implies that the building systems are designed according to operational, residential, or functional needs.

Austin’s program has expanded from commercial, to singlefamily and multi-family. Although the program has worked primarily with builders, it is now reaching out to individual homeowners who need to make decisions regarding new or remodeled homes.

Whichever guidelines are followed, there are some design elements, materials, and issues which are common to the different green building programs. These are: integrated design process, decrease of materials used, site selection, accessibility, building orientation, heat ventilation and air conditioning, insulation, windows, lighting, appliances, storm water management, and water conservation.9

In this section, the symbol “!!⇒! !“ indicates building or energy codes related to the subsection.

Another approach recommended by the USDOE, is to follow four steps in order to successfully complete a green building project: 8

8

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

4.1.1 Integrated Design Process According to this principle, relevant team members must be included during the planning and design phases of the project.

Including the general contractor in discussions with the architect or the engineer may help identify ways of reducing upfront costs. For example, a design may call for a room size or shape which will require an additional roll of carpet because the size of the room is not standard; if all the team is not present from the beginning, this design issue may not be identified as an increase in cost. Encouraging the integrated approach may encourage communication regarding these issues during the planning process and reduce costs.

Alternative techniques like rainwater catchments and infiltration basins may cost less, be more environmentally friendly, and provide a more attractive design (see Section 7, Southwest Trails).

4.1.6 Building Orientation Building or home orientation should take into account solar access, shading, and natural lighting. Windows of a building should face north and primarily south if possible. This will prevent overheating of the home and make the best use of natural light.

4.1.7 Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) The proper design and installation of an HVAC system is usually reflected in energy bill savings. When calculating the size of the unit (right-sizing), not only the square footage of the home, but also insulation levels, window type and orientation, and air-ceiling measures should be a taken into account. Installation of ceiling fans helps circulate cold and warm air. Fans can be adjusted during the summer to draw warm air upward and in the winter to push it downward.

Surprisingly, smaller HVAC units may be more efficient for cooling and dehumidifying a home than larger units where the climate is hot and humid. ⇒ The IECC 2001 requires cooling equipment to be sized and installed according to the Manual J calculation. Free software that allows a short calculation is available from Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA). 10

4.1.2 Reduce Material Use The amount of materials used may be reduced by designing open rooms. Open spaces also facilitate the distribution of natural light decreasing the need for artificial light use during the day. Optimal-value engineering and advanced framing techniques are methods used to reduce materials and costs (see Section 6, Brownsville Case Study). As mentioned above, standardizing building dimensions optimizes the construction by reducing costs and materials. Using standard sizes may also translate into reducing on-site labor by reducing the onsite cutting and measuring. Finally, standarizing and optimizing the use of the materials reduces the cost of solid waste disposal.

4.1.3 Site Selection The geographical and topographical features that characterize the area on which the building will be raised need to be considered. Accounting for solar access, runoff, air movement patterns, parcel shape, access, zoning, and proposed developments adjacent or close to the building will allow for the most important preliminary design decisions. Cut-and-fill practices, where soil is brought to the site or taken elsewhere, should be avoided and moving soil within the site should be favored. Sites which already have infrastructure, such as sewer lines, utility lines and existing roadways are preferable, not only because extending infrastructure will be very costly, but because undeveloped land should be preserved.

4.1.8 Ventilation For most affordable home designs, simple and controlled ventilation systems can be economical to install. To improve energy efficiency throughout the house, the attic should be ventilated.

4.1.9 Ductwork In order to save energy, it is recommended that duct joints be sealed with mastic. It is also important to ensure adequate insulation after sealing with mastic. Mastic is economical, provides a durable seal, and is easy to apply. ⇒ The IECC code requires duct connections to be sealed with mastic or approved UL-181 A or Brated foil tape, outside-thermal envelop ducts to be insulated with R-6 insulation, and balanced air flow in air duct with dampers or other means.11

4.1.4 Accessibility Selecting a site that is accessibility to public transportation and is pedestrian-friendly encourages a community environment where walking and the use of public transportation is encouraged. Facilitating access to residents or tenants also reduces the parking areas and preserves open space. Encouraging public transit alternatives helps the environment by reducing parking areas and, therefore, decreasing impervious cover that prevents water from naturally soaking into the ground. Alternative techniques and materials which allow for permeable parking lots are available.

4.1.10 Air Leakage Air leakage may increase the heating and cooling by up to 30%. Usually, the greatest amount of leakage occurs in places like the attic, crawl space, or basement. Reducing air leakage may cost less than $200 for an average home. It is recommended to avoid running ducts on exterior walls to improve energy performance, however, if it must be done, perforations must be foamed or caulked. ⇒ The IECC requires proper installation of caulking and weather stripping to prevent air leakage. 12

4.1.5 Stormwater Management Increased runoff is the consequence of impervious cover; this runoff needs to be controlled through stormwater management systems.

99

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

4.1.11 Insulation Properly installed insulation lacking gaps or compressed areas will increase energy efficiency. Poorly installed insulation results in condensation problems inside the home. ⇒ The IECC requires proper installation of insulation for full effective R-value. 13

4.1.16 Landscape Water can also be conserved by planting water-efficient landscape or xeriscape 16 and using native plants for landscaping. In addition, an efficient irrigation system or rainwater collection system can be used to water landscape or for other uses. Maintaining the integrity of the site and its vegetation, such as large trees around the property will provide shade, may allow the downsizing of air conditioning systems, and alliviate runoff. Designing or allowing space for composting will also reduce waste and the product can be used in the gardens. 17

4.1.12 Windows Energy-efficient windows cost more than standard window models; however, they can significantly reduce energy bills.

High performance windows can reduce cooling and heating needs and allow for smaller, less costly HVAC units. High performance windows also reduce drafts and condensation. ⇒ The IECC requires the Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) to be met by either glazing with 0.40 SHGC or lower or by solar screens with 0.4 SHGC or lower.

4.2 Materials When choosing the construction materials, the whole-building design concept must be kept in mind. The building can be designed in such a way that leftover materials from one part of the construction may be used in a different section. If possible, materials should also come from recycled resources such as paper and agricultural by-products for insulation and sheet materials, cardboard for sub-flooring products, aluminum for roofing, steel for nails, and wood fiber for wall blocks.

Another environmentally and energy-efficient alternative is to use cement fiber board for siding, cabinets and structure.

In addition, it is recommended that the materials used be from local sources and local suppliers to encourage the local economy and save on transportation costs.

14

4.1.13 Lighting For interior use: Compact or tubular fluorescent fixtures are recommended for kitchens, halls, and some living areas where lights will be on for 4 hours or more each day. Fluorescent fixtures add to upfront costs, however, according to the USDOE Energy Star program “if you replace 25% of your lights with fluorescent lights, you can save about 50% on your light bill.”

For exterior use: Compact fluorescent or high pressure sodium fixtures for security lighting and if possible, motion sensors or photo cells to operate lights automatically. ⇒ The IECC requires recessed-can lighting fixtures that are Type IC-AT (insulated can, air tight), or Type IC or non-IC rated installed inside a sealed box, or Type IC rated with ASTM E283 label. 15 Outdoor spaces can be designed with night safety in mind even with reduced lighting.

4.2.1 Structural Materials Structural materials can be used as finish materials; this can be achieved by exposing ceiling beams or staining concrete floor slabs.

4.2.2 Patios Depending on local availability, concrete, brick or stone patios should be favored and wood decks avoided.

4.1.14 Appliances Refrigerators, washers, dryers and dishwashers are required by federal law to have a tag that estimates the operating costs between energy efficient and standard models. Cheap inefficient appliances will generate higher energy bills for the families. Water heaters may be used to satisfy the heating requirements of a house if the heating loads have been reduced through design and window performance as mentioned previously.

4.2.3 Plumbing Fixtures Smaller diameter hot water supply pipes deliver water faster reducing water waste. Smaller diameter pipes are also less expensive.

4.2.4 Toilets Installing water efficient toilets reduce the use of water by more than 50%. New toilets use 1.6 gallons per flush while old toilets may use 5-7 gallons.18

4.1.15 Water Conservation Choosing lower priced fuels can reduce energy costs for heating water. In addition, low-flow showerheads, tank insulation jackets, and convection traps in hot and cold water lines will reduce costs.

10

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

4.2.5 Concrete Concrete systems are now attracting interest because they provide alternatives to timber construction, increased fire resistance, provide superior thermal and sound insulation, and are easy to use in construction.

4.3 Alternative Building Techniques There are a few alternative building technologies. These include: straw-bale, rammed earth, optimum value engineering, structural insulated panels, and insulating concrete forms.

4.3.1 Straw-Bale Construction Straw-bale construction has been mostly used in areas of the country where the weather is hot and dry. The walls made from straw-bale provide an insulation of R-5021; walls insulated with conventional materials on a wood frame are normally R13. This construction helps maintain the inside temperature cooler during the day and warmer at night in places where I temperatures are high during the day and drop at night. .

4.3.2 Rammed Earth Construction (Adobe) Rammed earth is a construction method that uses clay and timber. It saves energy and produces beautiful structures.

Adobe walls are built by tamping a mixture of soil, 3% Portland cement with a 6-10% moisture content. The soil is poured into the forms and the forms can be stripped right away; for each day that passes, the wall becomes stronger. More information is available through the Adobe Builder Magazine at www.adobebuilder.com.

Flyash in Concrete Flyash is a byproduct of coal burning and can be used in a mixture (15%-40%) with Portland cement in concrete. Flyash can be inexpensive and increases the durability and strength of concrete. 19 Aerated Concrete Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) is a lightweight concrete for commercial, industrial, and residential construction. Like conventional concrete, AAC consists of cement, lime, flyash, water, and aggregates. To make AAC, the manufacturer also adds aluminum powder to the mix, molds the concrete into shapes, and bakes it in an autoclave, which steam-cures the concrete under pressure. The process produces a material that weighs only one-fifth as much as a conventional concrete block of the same size, but increases its cost. The concrete’s light weight makes it easier to manipulate during construction, and its aerated structure gives it better insulation and sound absorption values than conventional concrete.

4.3.3 Optimum Value Engineering (OVE) This is a method of construction uses wood only where it is most effective. Using OVE reduces the amount of lumber and allows for an increase in insulation space. The most important factor to consider is the structural stability of the house.

Another method that follows the same rationale is Advanced Framing Details (see Section 6, Brownsville Case Study).

Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs) New types of concrete block, rigid foam insulation, and new construction methods have coalesced into concrete block building systems that are cost effective and have better performance than previous systems. CMUs also provide insulation and design alternatives such as interior insulated block, exterior insulated block, and in-block insulation.

Lightweight concrete blocks can speed installation because they are up to 25% lighter in weight.20

4.3.4 Structural Insulated Panels (SIP) These panels are made up of foam board four to eight inches in thickness pressed in between two panels of plywood or strand-oriented board (OSB). SIP serves as both framing and insulation which makes the construction time less than OVE or conventional stick framing. The thickness of the panel is directly proportional to the R-value, providing R-values from R-15 to R-45.

4.2.6 Paint Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) can cause irritation and contribute to ground level ozone. Use low- or no-VOC paint for indoor painting.

4.2.7 Roofing Install light colored roofing. Light colors reflect the heat away from the house reducing the heat build-up on the roof. Dark colors on the other hand, absorb heat and increase heat in the house during the summer.

4.3.5 Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF) These foam forms are used to construct internal house walls; the forms are connected by steel and the concrete is poured and sandwiched into the forms. Buildings constructed with this technique are very strong and suitable for areas prone to tornadoes or hurricanes. ICF construction provides an insulation value of at least R-25.

4.2.8 Particle Board Particle board contains formaldehyde which is volatile and produces eye, throat and nose irritation. Sealing particle board with water based low-VOC sealer reduces the vaporization of formaldehyde. Alternative materials to particle board are solid hardwood, formaldehyde-free pressed wood, or plywood (usually has less glue to release formaledehyde).

11 11

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

5. Evaluating Energy-Efficient and Green Building Techniques

initial value and future costs, in today’s dollars. This method is more accurate, but also requires more detailed input, for example, year on which the project will begin, the date of services, and the number of years of the project (years of financial interest). Also, different systems can be compared if the same evaluation periods and discount rates are used. The USDOE has calculators available through the web which allow the comparison of two different methods (see Appendix C).

5.1 Methods for Measuring Energy-Efficient and Green Building Techniques Evaluation of an energy-efficient or green building measure is sometimes disregarded or forgotten; however, well established construction programs rely heavily on the evaluation and testing of the design and the systems used.

There are several common evaluation methods which are specific to what is being evaluated. According to the USDOE there are three ways of performing cost analysis specific to buildings, although this does not refer or directly translate into residential savings, the evaluation methods serve the same purpose.

Standarized Payback Equation The Standardized Payback Equation uses standardized formulas and procedures to determine the short and long term costs. The International Performance Measure Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) has an overview of the best practice techniques available for verifying the results of energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy projects. The IPMVP has allowed for the participation of financial institutions in projects on the basis of standardized future energy savings.22 The basic equation is:

In buildings, the upfront cost may be about 10% higher depending on the designs, and will reduce the energy use by 50% from a conventional design. It is important to determine feasible design alternatives for the building or residence and the occupants’ comfort, safety, regulations and codes. The calculation of the cost benefit can be done through a Simple Payback Analysis, a Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC) or a Standardized Payback Equation.

Energy Savings = Base Year Energy Use – Post-Fit Energy Use ± Adjustments* *Derived from physical changes such as weather or occupancy

The IPMVP outlines several methods of evaluation depending on the scope of the project. Although it is not tailored to residential projects, the recommendations made are applicable to all types of projects. Some of the recommendations include:

Simple Payback Analysis Using the Simple Payback Analysis, the upfront cost of the design change or advanced technology is divided by the energy cost savings for the year. This will result in the number of years that it will take for the improvement to pay for itself.

• Gathering and recording relevant energy and

For example, fluorescent lighting for a sample home costs $300 ($30 each) and produces an annual savings of around $150 per year. The simple payback time for this improvement would be$300/$150 annually = two years. The basic equation is:

• • •

operating data from the base year such that it can be recorded, collected, and accesses in the future; Designing an energy savings program Designing a measuring and verification plan; Testing and inspecting.

The methods and examples included in the IMPVP apply to office buidings where functions and energy uses may be more structured than in a home. Currently, software is available to evaluate various systems and costs; for example, the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) version 3.0 is a piece of software developed by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and supported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which allows for the user to select cost-effective and environmentally-preferred building products. 23 More information is available on evaluation software developed by agencies and vendors in Appendix C.

Cost of Improvement/Annual Savings = Payback Time

This energy-efficient improvement would pay for itself in two years; a 50% (1/2 = 0.5) simple return on the investment.

Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC) The LCC method allows the evaluation of the improvement cost in light of the lifetime benefits, the initial cost, the maintenance and operation costs, the financing available, the life-expectancy of the equipment or system (repair or replacement costs), and the energy savings. This method is particularly beneficial for improvements which will be paidoff in 3 to 5 years or longer. The LCC analysis results in an amount which represents the discounted cost, based on the

12

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

5.2 Costs and Benefit: Approaches to Evaluation

AHFH works with local businesses and the City of Austin in order to obtain some of these benefits. For example, AHFH obtains the metal roof for $200 less than the shingles and see the benefits of this material within the first month in energy savings. AHFH installs radiant barriers in all the houses they build; although this increases the initial cost, the savings are passed on to the families after two months.

The City of Austin has developed a checklist of categorized items to help customers evaluate the green building level of their home. See Appendix E for the City of Austin’s Green Building Checklist, more than 50% of the items on the checklist can be achieved at no cost. A great number of items are dependent upon the design and the site planning conducted.

In Austin, the Green Building program is tied to the Safe, Mixed income, Accessible, Reasonably priced, and Transit oriented (S.M.A.R.T.) housing policy. This policy encourages affordable housing by providing incentives to builders and promoting green building practices. Different states and cities have adopted a variety of measures and a range of systems to build energy-efficient or green building homes.

A series of reports have been conducted to determine the energy savings yielded by several energy-efficient technologies tested around the country. A study conducted by the USDOE and Stephen Winter Associates, Inc., reviewed the results of energy-efficient technologies in homes built in Florida, Texas, California and Illinois by large and small builders members of Consortium for Advanced Residential Building (CARB). The report lists 22 projects for which energy savings have been determined; these projects account for over 600 homes to which a variety of energy-efficient technologies were introduced. Of the 22 projects for which the percent of energy savings was determined, 17 were reported to yield 30% or more in energy savings.

The Austin Habitat For Humanity (AHFH) is one of the organizations taking advantage of the S.M.A.R.T. housing and Green Building program (to be explained in more detail in Case Study 2, Section 7). In order for a developer to participate in S.M.A.R.T. housing, all the units built must achieve at least a one-star Green Building rating. AHFH builds three-star single family homes and in exchange, building permit fees and capital recovery fees totaling about $1,450 are waived by the City. In addition, AHFH received CHDO funds of about $22,000 per lot for 2003 for land and infrastructure. AHFH evaluates decisions regarding green building and energy-efficient features based on the value of return of investment (Simple Payback Analysis). The analysis for some features for a typical three-bedroom house built by AHFH are shown on Table 5.1.

The upfront cost is increased by $308 to $508 dollars, however, for the items which are known, the families will begin saving $62.50 per month after six months. This translates into $750 of energy savings per year, after the first six months, for the families.

A variety of products and systems were integrated into these homes, for example, photovoltaic solar systems, poured concrete walls, steel floor systems, and precast concrete foundations. A ‘package’ of modifications for homes with central AC units has been determined to save costs in the short and long terms. There are two items that add initial cost: installing high-performance low-E glazing windows and increasing ductwork insulation or bringing the ductwork inside the insulated space where possible. The report, however, does not specify the additional cost that these two items will add to the home.

These modifications ‘reduce the peak cooling load in the home’ and allow for the AC unit to be downsized decreasing cost. Other modifications that result in savings are, reduction in the window size, eliminating exterior plumbing vents by using air-admittance valves (see Section 6, Brownsville Case Study), and reducing the amount of framing. The savings are reported to be 30% annual energy cost for the tenant and $1,500 for the builder (due to the downsizing of the AC unit).

Table 5.1 Payback Analysis for Green Materials Material

Cost

Radiant Barrier High Efficiency Water Heater Metal Roof vs.

Light Shingle Roof Trees for Shading east & west

$95

Avg. Savings per Month $50+

$13

$2.50

($200)

$3

Free*

Varies by orientation

Drought-resistant Plants Free* Varies Programmable Thermostats Free** $5+ Energy Star Refrigerator Free*** $2 Low-e Vinyl vs.

Metal Windows $400-$600 Unknown Total $308-$508 Source: Austin Habitat For Humanity, January 2004 *From Native Texas Nurseries **From Honeywell ***From Whirlpool

Payback Time < 2 months

The report also emphasizes that if the builder already builds tight homes and uses bronze double-glazing windows the modifications would cost $1,000 more. All the projects which had a combination of low-E glazing windows, mastic-sealed ductwork, and some type of increase in the insulation reported annual energy savings of 30 to 46%.24

< 6 months None

None

A fact sheet published by the USDOE reported that an average home in the Southern U.S. in 1999 spent about $1,366 in energy bills annually. Habitat for Humanity in Pennsylvania reported that most of the energy consumption occurred when no attention was paid to the HVAC and the building envelope.25

None None None Unknown

13 13

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Another fact sheet gives specific information regarding the costs and savings for the different construction methods.

According to Building America, traditional construction provides space for the ductwork in the unconditioned space, does not insulate the foundation, and provides a gas furnace and water heater. The cost-savings measures reported by Building America are related to the improvements in the building envelope, mechanical systems, lighting and appliances. The reduction in the framing costs comes from using 2x6 at 24" on center instead of 2x4 at 16" on center on exterior walls (see Brownsville Case Study). Savings of $450 were reported, as seen on Table 5.2, in addition to 50% annual energy savings for the residents.

Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME funds, Youthbuild, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Counseling, HUD Colonia Initiatives, HUD Rural Housing and Economic Development, USDA Mutual Self-Help, USDA Empowerment Zone funds, and grant funds from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas. CDCB assists low-income families in attaining home ownership through below-market financing, quality construction, and efficient home designs.

Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing The Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) is a HUD program, envisioned in 1994 and founded in 1998, which promotes private-public partnerships. PATH provides technical assistance to builders and remodelers who are willing to use innovative technologies in their residential buildings.

Table 5.2 Sample Cost-Savings for Mixed Climates from Building America Case Study26

Energy-Efficient Technology Framing No housewrap Insulating Sheathing High-Performance Windows Savings on Duct System Savings on air conditioning system Air Flow retarder system Controlled Ventilation System Integrated Heating Domestic Hot Water system

Steven Winter Associates, Inc. In this case, PATH funded collaboration between CDCB and Steven Winter Associates, Inc. (SWA). Through this collaboration, SWA obtained the plans of the standard colonia house built by CDCB and made modifications that would result in an energy-efficient home. SWA has been producing architectural plans at no cost (or cost subsidized by PATH) to the CDCB and CDCB has assigned the Youthbuild staff to build the house in order to minimize the cost due to nonstandard construction.

Cost ($250) ($300) $300 $300 ($300) ($500) $300 $100 ($100)

Youthbuild CDCB administers its own Youthbuild program. Youthbuild is a federal program under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This program provides grants to non-profit organizations to aid very low-income youth between the ages of 16-24 who have dropped out of high school.

Through this program the youth complete their high school education and learn housing construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing.

NOTE: Items in parenthesis indicate cost savings attained.

6. Case Study 1: Energy-Efficient Home, Cameron Park, Texas The Objectives of this case study are: • To describe the demographics of the area served by the CDC of Brownsville and the area where the energy-efficient home is located, • To describe the methods and materials used in the energy-efficient home, • To assess the economic impacts of the energyefficient features used, • To describe the financing structure used, • To assess the challenges faced by the project.

Timeline

(as described by HUD-PATH)

6.1 Background of the Project

PATH works to create partnerships between those who use advanced technologies in housing, in this case Steven Winter Associates, and those who are striving to integrate these energy-efficient technologies into their contruction process.

The following is the account of how the process occurred for the CDCB. Initial conversations were held between the Housing Operations Manager, the architect from SWA and PATH staff.

This section will describe the entities involved in the production of the energy-efficient affordable home and the chronology of the process. In addition, the physical characteristics of the area, the community with whom CDCB works, and the layering of financing will be described in this section.

October - November 2001 - SWA contacts CDCB Youthbuild for list of projects. PATH and SWA approach CDCB colonia program to build an energy-efficient colonia home upon suggestion from CDCB Youthbuild.

Community Development Corporation of Brownsville The Community Development Corporation of Brownsville (CDCB) is a private 501(c)(3) non-profit housing development organization founded in 1974. Currently, CDCB administers the City of Brownsville and the State of Texas Community

December - January 2001 - SWA requests letter of commitment and additional information for PATH funding request to HUD and CDCB sends letter of commitment. SWA signs nondisclosure agreement and the project is approved for PATH funding.

14

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

February - March 2002 – SWA travels to Brownsville to meet with CDCB and observe construction practices, see completed colonia house and identify areas of energy efficiency improvement. SWA submits a report on energy tradeoffs that show energy-saving technologies are feasible without raising ownership cost.

between 1990 and 2000. In fact Cameron County has experienced fast paced growth for the past three decades as seen on Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1. The population in Cameron Park CDP, where the energy-efficient home is located, represents 1.8% of the population from Cameron County. The growth rate of Cameron Park CDP was 56.8%, from 3,802 people in 1990 to 5,961 in 200028.

June - July 2002 – SWA completes the preliminary framing drawings and CDCB sends materials list for colonia house to SWA. SWA completes revisions to colonia house plans and prepares for final set of framing drawings, completes final wind code package, and seeks Texas-certified engineering stamp. SWA plans to spend framing savings on advanced energy-saving measures.

Figure 6.1 Cameron County Population Growth

Population

Cameron County Population Growth 1970-2000

August - September 2002 – Calculations sent to Simpson Strong-Tie engineering for approval. Stamped engineering drawings are received, SWA makes revisions to drawings and submits them to CDCB for approval.

400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

January 2003 – SWA sends revised drawings.

June - July 2003 – Final revised plans are sent to CDCB. Flooring, framing, roofing, completed by the YouthBuild program; electric and plumbing completed by subcontractors.

SWA makes two site visits.

Table 6.1 Cameron County Population Percent Increase

Year

Profile of Climate, Demographic and Economic Information of the Region This section of the report will give a brief description of the location of the project and the demographic and economic conditions in the area where the house is being built. This detailed description of the area will illustrate the challenges and strengths of the area and an appreciation for the process that the CDCB has followed.

Population Percent Increase

1970

140,368

1980

209,727

49.4%

1990

260,120

24.0%

2000 335,227 28.9% US Census. Historical Population Counts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48061lk.html on July 1, 2003.

More than half of the population in both Cameron County, 55.1% and Cameron Park CDP, 52.9% is within working age (18 – 64 years old). Cameron Park CDP has a significantly higher percent (43.4%) of individuals under the age of 18 years as compared to Cameron County (33.8%) and to Texas (28.2%).

On the other hand, Cameron Park CDP has a smaller percent (3.7%) of people over the age of 65 years as compared to both Cameron County (11.1%) and Texas (9.9%).30 This age distribution implies that there is a higher need for public services for the younger population and less need for services for the elderly in Cameron Park CDP.

Location of Cameron County, Cameron Park CDP, and CDCB Cameron County is located on the South Texas border with Mexico; it has a land area of 905 square miles. It is bordered on the east by the Gulf of Mexico and on the south by Mexico.

Brownsville, Harlingen, Los Fresnos and Rio Hondo are cities within Cameron County. Brownsville is the southernmost city in the county; CDCB is located in downtown Brownsville and serves the entire county. CDCB is part of the 16-county State Service Region 11, which is also served by 25 other CDCs. Cameron Park Census Designated Place (CDP)27 is located in Cameron County and abuts the City of Brownsville a few miles north of downtown. Cameron Park CDP has a land area of 0.61 square miles.

Not surprisingly, the majority, or 84.3%, of the population in Cameron County is Hispanic; similarly, 99.3% of the population in Cameron Park CDP is Hispanic. The Hispanic population has grown over 2% in Cameron County and over 3% in Cameron Park CDP during the last decade.31 The population density in Cameron County is 370 persons per square mile compared to 79.6 persons per square mile in Texas. Cameron Park CDP is the largest and oldest colonia in Texas; close to 6,000 people live in 1,100 units of housing.

The average household size in Cameron Park CDP is 4.7 while in Cameron County it is 3.4 persons per household. Cameron Park CDP is considered by the USDA to be a rural area/open country. Over 40% of the housing units in

Demographic Information Cameron Park CDP is an area which is experiencing very rapid growth particularly of the younger demographic sector. The median family income is very low as compared to the county and to the state and the unemployment rate is high at 10.2% in 2000. The population in Cameron County has increased by 28.9%

15 15

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

family of 4 was $17,350 and 30%accordingly, MFI for a family of 4for was for Cameron County was $27,900, 50% MFI a $10,400. In Cameron Park CDP 80% MFI is $13,626 and 50% MFI is $8,517. This means thata family who earns at the 50% MFI level will be able to pay $2,555 a year ($213 monthly) or 30% of their yearly income towards rent without burden. As seen in Table 6.4 the median gross rent for Cameron CDP is $314, this is $101 more than this family earning 50% MFI can afford. This is where the CDCB steps in and provides alternatives to the families who cannot afford rent payments and therefore, are subject to living in substandard housing.

Later in this document the financing structure is described to demonstrate that at least 50% of the debt needs to be subsidized through public funding.

Cameron Park CDP are made up of 4 to 5 person households, while only 23% of the housing units in Texas and 30% of the units in Cameron County have 4 to 5 person households.

These household sizes demand a home with a greater number of rooms; the standard home built by the CDCB is threebedroom, one-bath to accommodate these families.

Of the 119,654 housing units in Cameron County, 18.7% are vacant. In Cameron Park CDP only 7.1% or 97 of the 1,366 housing units are vacant.31 Cameron Park CDP has a higher rate of owner occupied housing units at 72.5% than both Cameron County at 67.7% and the state of Texas at 63.8%.

Even though the percent of ownership is high, some of the homes in the colonias are in precarious condition since residents build their homes themselves as money becomes available.32 For example, 8.6% of the housing units in Cameron Park lack plumbing compared to 2.4% in Cameron County and 1.3% in the state. In addition, 7.7% of the housing units in Cameron Park lack kitchen facilities compared to 2.3% in Cameron County and 1.5% in Texas. 33 The difficulties that some families face with affordability may be explained by their significantly lower income levels as shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.4 Median Potential Gross Rent

Median gross rent

Number 3,576 109,288 3,117,609

Cameron $413

Texas $574

Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Table H63 Median Gross Rent

Climate Conditions in Cameron County It is important to consider the climatic conditions of the area since some of the energy-efficient choices for materials and processes are based on the constraints presented by weather conditions. The weather in this region of Texas is described as semi-tropical. In the summer months the temperatures are in the mid 90’s and in January, the coolest month, the temperature maintains an average of 60 degrees and high humidity. The rainfall averages 25 inches during the year and winds average 11.3 mph. Soil composition makes the water corrosive in this region. In addition, the area is vulnerable to the hurricanes coming from the Gulf of Mexico; winds under these conditions can reach up to 140 mph. Texas recently upgraded their building design codes to consider higher wind speeds for the area from 100 to 110 mph by adopting the International Building Code (IBC). The adopted code prescribes specific bracing and fastening methods for structures and roofs.36 These factors need to be considered in the construction of the homes in the region.

Table 6.2 Income in 1999 Below Poverty Level

Cameron Park CDP Cameron County Texas

Cameron Park CDP $314

Percent 61.2% 33.6% 15.4%

Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Table P87 Poverty Status in 1999

As Table 6.2 demonstrates, over half of the population in Cameron Park CDP has an income below the poverty level.

The median household income of $16,934 in Cameron Park CDP is 42% of that of the Texas median household income.

Similarly, the median family income (MFI) of $17,033 is 37% of that of the Texas MFI. Table 6.3 Median Household and FamilyIncome in 1999

Table 6.5 Climatic Conditions in Cameron County

Median Household Income Median Family Income

Cameron Park CDP $16,934

Cameron Texas County $26,155 $39,927

$17,033

$27,853

Average Annual Precipitation Average Annual Temperature Extreme Max./Extreme Min. Temp.

Average Relative Humidity Altitude

$45,861

Census 2000 Summary File (SF1) 100-Percent Data, Tables P53 Madian Household Income and P 77 Median Family Income

25” 74ºF 20ºF/110ºF 75.3% 33 ft above sea level

Source: Brownsville Economic Development Council. NDA. Retrieved on July 1, 2003 from www.bedc.com/quality/

The MFI is the income used to determine housing affordability.

According to the 2000 HUD34 area MFI income limits, the MFI

16

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Description of Energy-Efficient Project in Cameron Park CDP, Texas In this section of the report site and house description, financing structure, energy-efficient materials and improvements, and the challenges faced by the project will be discussed.

The house also has a 3’x5’ foot front porch on cement slab and a 13’x9’ living and dining space. The bedroom sizes are 89.5, 93.4, and 99.8 square feet. The bathroom, the kitchen, the washer and dryer connections and the water heater are toward the back of the house. Washer and dryer are built into the hallway to reduce dead space and utilize all areas.

Project Description The energy-efficient home is being built in the central area of Cameron Park CDP colonia. This house is the first energy-efficient home built through the CDC of Brownsville in the Cameron Park colonia. The house is located on Gregory Avenue, Brownsville, Texas. CDCB is in the process of building other homes with similar energyefficient features.

Frame and Trim The framing of the house is built with all new materials.

Exterior studs are 16" on center and interior studs are 24" on center. Wind tie-downs and straps were used in order to comply with the Texas wind code.

Cedar was used for the exterior trim, AC plywood for soffit and porch ceilings, and hardy plank for siding. The exterior cladding was painted with light-colored paint.

The lot, owned by the family, is 7,200 square feet (60’ x 120’); their current home and a shed stand in the back of the lot.

Project Expenditures and Funding/Financing The construction cost of this project is expected to be as much as the other homes built for this area, $30,000 total cost; however, the design improvements are expected to save $500 in framing costs and $230 in energy savings per year assuming Energy Star appliances and fluorescent fixtures are installed.39

Site The land available for building was about 2,500 square feet.

The front of the house faces the street (Gregory Avenue).

Gregory Avenue runs southeast to northwest at an almost perfect 45° angle.

The Rural and Colonia Loan Program (RCLP) is a privatepublic program for South Texas border colonias and rural areas. The partnership is between CDCB and the Rio Grande Valley Multibank, a bank owned CDFI capitalized by nine banks to benefit families with low and very low-income in the colonias on the South Texas border. Four banks (JP Chase, Wells Fargo, Texas State Bank, and International Bank of Commerce) in the RLCP have committed $2.4 million for below market interest rate loans for colonia and rural families.

Infrastructure As part of the site work, two 18" diameter concrete drainage pipes were laid at the entry of the house. A new sewer line from the house drain leads to the utility in the street and a new water line from main shutoff to the street.

Plan The house is a 3-bedroom one-bath 864 square feet (32’x27’) structure with an unenclosed, attached, covered carport (see Figure 6.2). The families have a choice, depending on their budget, of including the carport. The size of this home is the standard size for the Colonia Homes built by CDCB.

Figure 6.2 View of the carport and old home from the southeast. Steeper roof pitch to simplify framing.

17 17

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

6.2.1 Windows Aluminum doubled glazed units with low E double glazing, also referred to as high performance windows, were used.

This is one of the requirements for Texas according to the Senate Bill 5 (Texas Building Energy Performance Standards).

High performance windows can reduce cooling and heating needs and allow for smaller, less costly AC units. ⇒ The IECC requires the Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) to be 0.40 or lower or by glazing with a SHGC of 0.4 or lower.

The house has a total of seven windows: two windows in the front of the house on each side of the front door, two windows on the sides of the house, one by the car port and one for the middle room opposite to the car port, and three windows in the back, one for the back room, one for the kitchen, and a small one for the bathroom.

Figure 6.3 View of the front porch

The Multibank originates 20 year mortgage loans and finances 50% of these loans to qualified families. The CDCB, using public funds, finances the other 50% of the loan at 0% interest with repayments according to the requirements of the funding source. Through this financial structure, the families will end up paying between $200 and $240 per month at 3.5% for 20 years for principal, interest, taxes and insurance depending on the amount of the loan. They pay only $120 for principal and interest.

This program also offers unique underwriting criteria which prescribes that the future owners demonstrate an amount of disposable cash equal to or greater than the monthly payment of principal and interest. Since the underwriting criteria is unique, the participating banks are protected through a ‘loan guaranty’ which establishes that there are two reserve funds funded through a Housing and Urban Development Rural Housing Economic Development grant. The first is the Loan Loss Reserve, a fund made up of set asides of percentages from the banks’ portion of the loans, and the second is a payment reserve which is made up of three months of payment plus interest set aside from the grant portion to guaranty the payments from the recipients in case they cannot make the mortgage payment. The latter also protects the homeowner in case they cannot make the payments. In case of a loan default, the four banks will share the cost at 25% each. However, RCLP has never had loan defaults.37 To illustrate the financing structure refer to Table 6.6.

Figure 6.4 Front High Performance Window

6.2.2 Insulation The level of the house’s envelop insulation was increased to R-13 in the walls and R-30 in the attic. In addition, the duct insulation was increased to R-6.5, 1-1/2" duct board (see Figure 6.5).

Properly installed insulation, lacking gaps or compressed areas increase efficiency. Poorly installed insulation results in condensation problems. ⇒ IECC requires proper installation of insulation for full effective R-value

Table 6.6 Sample Financing Structure PRIVATE INVESTMENT (MULTIBANK) LOAN AMOUNT Term

$16,000 10 Years

Interest Rate Lien Position Equity& Down payment

7% 1st

Public Investment (Federal, State and foundation funds raised by CDCB) $16,000 Deferred for 1st 10 years, due in 11-20 years 0% 2nd

Net Loan $32,000* 20 Years 3.5%

Applicants land/lot and $60

* Includes closing costs such as title insurance, credits report, inspection fee, document preparation, recording fees, escrow accounts, warehouse loan fee, first year hazard insurance, and property taxes.

6.2 Specific Design and Materials

18

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Figure 6.7 Arrow indicates perforation to the exterior frame caused by the installation of the electric box which by code needs to be caulked or covered with foam.

In addition, ductwork joints should be covered with mastic sealing which is more effective than tape and lasts the life of the home. To prevent air-leakage, all perforations done to the exterior frame i.e. electric wiring, electric switches, plumbing must be either caulked or covered with foam (see Figures 6.7 and 6.8) . Air leakage may increase the heating and cooling by up to 30%. Reducing air leakage may cost less than $200 for an average home and is required by the Model Energy Code.

➜

6.2.3 Framing Advanced framing details simplified ridge supports and reduced the number of interior studs. The advanced framing technique is focused on making efficient use of materials.

Based on engineering calculations which account for wind and weight loads, the amount of wood uesd for the framing is reduced. For example, a non weight-bearing door is calculated to safely need only one 2x4 instead of the regularly used two 2x8s. This allowed for the elimination of one 2x8 (see Figures 6.8 and 6.9).

Figure 6.5 R-6.5 insulation in ducts.

➜

➜

Figure 6.8 One 2x4 on non weight-bearing door

Figure 6.6 Arrows indicate perforation to the exterior frame caused by the installation of the electric wiring which needs to be caulked or covered with foam.

Figure 6.9 Two 2x8 that have been used previously

Caulking was specified to prevent any drafts of air from coming in or any cool air from leaving the home. The IECC requires proper installation of caulking and weather stripping to prevent air leakage.

19 19

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

In addition, 24" on center interior studs aligned with joists were used instead of 16" on center. This change saves one stud every 48". This illustrated clearly how advanced framing technique is one of the cost-saving measures in this project.

The use of lumber-saving “ladder” bracing where interior partitions join each other and outside walls (Figure 6.10 background on left) provides support where necessary.

Figure 6.12 Additional tie-down bolts

!

6.2.4 HVAC The HVAC system used was a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating (SEER) of 12 instead of 10 as required by the Energy Texas Code. The Manual J calculation was done to right-size equipment which resulted in the installation of a 1.5 ton unit.

It is important not to oversize the equipment as oversizing allows humidity to rise inside the house and may result in mold.

➜

16” OC

24”OC ➜ ➜

➜

Figure 6.10 Interior studs 24" on center (front), exterior studs 16” on center (background), and ladder bracing (background on left).

6.2.5 Ventilation Small, well-insulated homes need mechanical ventilation; exhaust ventilation systems are not recommended because hot and humid air is sucked in and comes in contact with walls and ceilings which creates condensation and mold.

Instead, an intake-only ventilation (see Figure 6.13) is provided by a 6" duct that connects the outside vents to the air conditioning fan which filters and cools the air.

Extensive tie-down system (below) engineered by the Simpson StrongTie was installed along with the Holddown Anchor Tiedown System (see Figure 6.12) to provide a method of anchoring shear walls in wood frame construction and resist uplift forces caused by earthquakes and specifically for high winds.

Additional tie-down bolts were used on the exterior frame.

The cost savings on the framing of the house were re-invested on safety by increasing the number of bolts to place them 18" on center and placing a Holddown with an anchor bolt at each corner of the house.

Figure 6.13 Outside vents

Figure 6.11 Strong-tie anchor

20

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Studor Air Admittance Valves (AAV) are used to reduce the openings to the outside.41 The Studor AAV is a system alternative to the piping used for venting the plumbing system. Air circulation allows trap seals to work properly.

The AAV system allows for the air in the building to be used to create the pressure control and thetrap seals. The valves open when water is flowing through the pipes to allow air to enter the plumbing drainage system. When the flow stops, the valves close and prevent the escape of sewer gas from the plumbing system. This system allows for the reduction of vent piping; only one vent needs to go through the roof. 42

➜

Figure 6.15 PEX tubing manifold

6.2.8 Additional Tools Used It is important to have a team that represents all the interests of the project. The team members of the colonia team were Gordon Tully, the PATH/SWA architect, Juan Ramirez, Self-Help Construction Coordinator, and Isaias Garza, Youth Build Trainer. The day-to-day operations were supervised by Juan Ramirez, while Isaias made sure that the youth were following the different methods of construction.

Weekly meetings were held between the Self-Help, the Youth Build coordinators and Nick Mitchell-Bennett, Housing Operations Manager, to define where the project was and any advances that needed to be made. Plans and adjustments were received from Connecticut, where the architecture firm is housed.

Figure 6.14 Arrow indicates where AAV will be installed

6.2.6 Roofing The framing material was also reduced in the construction of the roof; this was accomplished by the simplified support of hip ridges on beams at the ceiling level. The architect also wanted to give the home a more imposing appearance without raising the ridge height; a steeper roof pitch on the short sides of the hipped roof provided a longer central ridge, so half the roof is framed like a simple gable roof. The layout of the grid-marked Oriented Standard Board (OSB) roof sheathing was planned such that the least number of sheets would be used.

6.2.9 Evaluation Method Energy Star Home Rating Method was used to evaluate the energy efficiency of the home. The home is tested to make sure that it exceeds the Model Energy Code by 30%. The Energy Star Home Rating is done through testing for air leakage using a ‘blower door’. The Blower door is a diagnostic tool that tests the air tightness of a home.

6.2.7 Water Efficiency: PEX Tubing Plastic Water Distribution Manifold is used in order to prevent the corrosion of the system by the water and simplify the installation of water piping. The blue tubing carries the cold water and the red tubing carries the hot water throughout the house. The PEX tubing replaces the copper tubing used in the standard colonia house and savings are reflected in the elimination of fittings between the manifold and the fixture and the decrease in labor cost due to easier installation.

An additional test is conducted to determine the quality of the duct system installation by using a ‘duct-blaster’. This test also verifies that the air passing through the duct system is getting to all the house registers. To perform this test, all registers are closed and the airflow required maintaining a certain air pressure is measured. This test can be performed after the HVAC system is installed.

21 21

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Table 6.7 Summary Chart of Energy-Efficient Features: Case Study 1, Cameron Park, Texas

Condition

Description

Cost Upfront/Long Term Measure

Climate Zones/

High winds ,–hurricane Hurricane-- prone area Corrosive Water Low-E glass – thin coating on windows that reflects heat out in the Summer and keeps heat in during the winter Careful sealing to cover any holes in the building envelope Increased insulation in the attic to R-30 blown-in insulation.

Increased thickness of insulation in the ductwork Increased wall insulation to R-13 Plastic manifold with PEX tubing which is not attacked by water. Replaces copper piping.

Holddowns, anchor bolts and trap ties required to meet Texas wind code More expensive windows – required by Texas Energy Code

Framing

Reduce wood in construction Increase wood due to new wind codes

After increase and reduction, there is an estimated $500 dollars in net savings.

Lighting

Circle-line fluorescent lights

Higher upfront costs Energy savings in the long run.

Ventilation

Air duct to the outside to draw outside air into the house

Improved indoor air quality

Waste and Vent Piping HVAC

AAV – Air Admittance Valves for waste line

Savings on labor and materials

SEER 12 unit installed according to new Texas code Downsized air conditioning system from 2 to 1.5 tons.

Reduction in cost for AC size partly compensates for higher SEER

Water Efficiency Material Recycling & Sustainable Resources

Low flow plumbing required by code

Reduction of water waste

Careful planning allowed for less materials to be used The amount of plywood was carefully calculated; the plywood was calculated and ordered considering that pieces that might not be used in some areas of the house (left over material), could be used in other areas.

Steeper pitch on the front and the back of the roof, increasing the ridge length to simplify framing

Reduced the amount of wood used

Insulation R-values

Water Piping

Roofing

22

Reduce labor costs Manifold is very close to the laundry area and to the bathroom; hot water is available very quickly at the fixture which prevents the waste of water.

Simple installation and better appearance

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

6.3 Challenges, Solutions and Future Project Suggestions

no local supplier for this product, the PEX tubing had to be shipped from a supplier in San Antonio. CDCB believes that once they go into production of energy-efficient houses using PEX tubing, the PEX tubing price will be driven down. PEX tubing, as mentioned before, is anti-corrosive and easier to install than the traditional copper plumbing.

Described below are the challenges CDCB faced during the planning and construction of the energy-efficient home, and the solutions and suggestions they provide for their own future projects and for anyone who embarks in a similar undertaking. The project presented several challenges to the CDCB team. Challenges related to building codes, aversion to change, costs of learning, cost increase, supplier base, and communication.

The architect from SWA, an expert on energy-efficient design, was the team leader for the project. However, his permanent office was located in Connecticut and this made the communication between the team members difficult. The changes in drawings and plans were difficult to implement due to lack of personal contact. The team continues to work through phone calls and mailed plans; however, they feel that perhaps having the designer/architect expertise within proximity would be more beneficial to all. As the PATH program increases in size it may be possible for the groups in Texas to build partnerships with local members to facilitate communication.

The Texas wind code upgraded its ‘fastest mile’ design wind speed for this area from 100 mph to 110 mph ruling out the use of 24" on center studs for the exterior walls. The 24" on center studs design was initially going to be applied to both exterior and interior walls; however, because of the upgrade in the code, only the interior walls were built with 24" on center studs. The lumber savings were limited to the interior walls.

In addition, the number of anchor bolts used was greater than with the standard construction, and savings made in lumber were reinvested in anchor bolts.

Finally, there are some suggestions that the team members consider important for the success of future projects. They considered that meeting and working with the entire team including not only the architect and leadership of the CDC, but also with contractors, subcontractors, Youth Build trainer, and Self-Help coordinator would have made the process more efficient and transparent. Working as a team from the beginning of the project and addressing the small changes and concerns would have reduced the skepticism and incited interest in the new techniques being introduced for those in the team who had not been exposed to the new technologies or designs. In addition, through team discussion, the ‘outside’ experts would become aware of local issues.

As part of the process of changing the construction design from standard colonia home to an energy-efficient colonia, skepticism flourished from the contractor, who in turn, had to face the skepticism of the subcontractors. The contractor had doubts about the real upfront and long term cost savings.

These doubts were channeled into questions and concerns that the architect was able to answer and address to the team’s satisfaction. The team’s objective was to make sure that the changes made were to the benefit of the family and this kept them on track.

The team also considered it important to outline some clear and realistic expectations and goals at the beginning of the project to avoid being disappointed or frustrated with the outcome. The change in construction techniques is best assimilated through repetition. The process should be repeated in different houses and done in small increments.

Both the architect and the contractor warn: Do not try to do everything at once. The changes should be focused in one specific area, for example, framing or insulation. If framing is chosen as a starting point, for example, then, a meeting of the team (architect, engineer, contractor, and subcontractors) should be held to outline the scope of the changes, the objectives, and the building code compliance issues, and also to clarify how the information will flow among them.

Furthermore, a baseline for amount of wood used with the current design should be established, so that changes made to the design can be tracked accurately and questions regarding building code can be addressed adequately by everyone. If all members are involved and understand the changes being made, they will have a sense of ownership and not one of skepticism toward the project.

In addition, the subcontractors considered this a deviation from their routine building and argued that they would take more time for training and construction. The time would translate into a higher cost for labor. Keeping in mind the cost, it was then decided that the CDCB staff and the CDCB Youthbuild group would be in charge of the construction of the house. The modifications will be slowly and incrementally introduced into the construction of different houses such that the contractors and subcontractors become familiar with the different changes. CDCB feels that once the contractors and subcontractors become familiar with the different systems, they will be able to work as fast as they do in the standard houses and the labor costs for the energy-efficient houses will be the same as or lower than that of the standard houses.

The changes were not only difficult for contractors and subcontractors, but also for the building inspectors.

Inspectors did not understand the changes and had to be walked through every new item; in some cases the inspectors were not up to date with the new building and energy codes and became aware of them through this project.

The PEX piping was a completely new product used for the plumbing of the house. Although this product is used nationwide, it has not been used in the valley. Since there was

This project demonstrates that construction changes to introduce energy-efficient features can reduce upfront costs and deliver long term savings.

23 23

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

7. Case Study 2: Energy-Efficient and Green Building Community, Austin, Texas

development integrates within the existing community. The rating scores range from one to five stars, five being the best score. S.M.A.R.T. Housing requires that all units meet standards to score at least one star. The Southwest Trails development obtained a three-star rating; the highest among the S.M.A.R.T. Housing multi-family developments in Austin.

The city has a clearly outlined process for non- or for- profit developers to follow. The Building Code and the S.M.A.R.T. housing initiative combined require multi-family developments to meet certain standards of accessibility on a percent of the units in order to qualify for the fee waivers. In addition to unit accessibility, the development must be within 0.25 miles of a Capital Metro transit route which serves the area every 20 minutes at peak times.

The objectives of this report are: • To describe the geographic area served by Foundation Communities and the demographic area where the multi-family community is located, • To describe methods and materials used in the energy-efficient and green building community, • To assess the economic impacts of the energyefficient features used, • To describe the financing structure, • To assess the challenges faced by the project.

7.1

In order for the process to go smoothly, the city recommends a preliminary meeting with the S.M.A.R.T. Housing staff followed by a meeting with the Green Building personnel to seek conditional approval. The developer then must submit a S.M.A.R.T. Housing application; if approved, the staff provides a certification letter and sets up a meeting to set the review schedule. The developer then submits plans to S.M.A.R.T. Housing for review of accessibility and Green Building requirements, the project is submitted and the project enters into development review and inspection process. Once building permits are issued, construction begins, Green Building performs a rough mechanical and final inspection and the certificate of occupancy is issued. The units are then rented to families complying with the income levels according to the rules established by the funding obtained by the project.

The units must be rented at the ‘reasonable’ rates for a period of five years. Repayment of all waived fees with interest will be required in case the units do not remain ‘reasonably-priced’ for five years.

Project Background

In this section, the role of the non-profit organization, the City of Austin and the Green Building program will be described.

In addition, the climatic, demographic and economic conditions of the tract where Southwest Trails is located as well as Travis county are described in detail.

Foundation Communities This non-profit organization provides affordable housing for residents in the Austin area and it has been doing so since 1984. Foundation Communities owns and manages 9 communities in Austin including Southwest Trails. In addition to providing housing, Foundation Communities is committed to the success of the residents in their communities. They provide support services such as on-site after school and summer youth programs, money management classes, English as a Second Language instruction, and other courses for adults as well as the opportunity to participate in Individual Development Account (IDA). The IDAs program matches residents’ savings up to 4-to-1 toward homeownership, business start-up or college.

Profile of Climate The weather in Central Texas is sunny, with 300 days a year of sunshine. In the summer temperature ranges from 75 to 110 degrees and the humidity is high. In the winter temperature ranges from 42 to 62 degrees.

Safe, Mixed-Income, Accessible, Reasonably Priced, and Transit-Oriented (S.M.A.R.T.) Housing Initiative The S.M.A.R.T. Housing Initiative, adopted on April 20, 2000, is a program run by the City of Austin to encourage the production of housing for low- and moderate income residents of Austin. In multi-family housing, developers who develop some units at ‘reasonable prices’ (80% AMFI) receive, depending on the reasonable price percentage of units, partial or full fee waivers. In addition, the City of Austin offers a faster review for S.M.A.R.T. Housing projects. The S.M.A.R.T. Housing developments are also required to meet Austin Energy Green Building’s minimum standards, approval of plans and final inspection.

Table 7.1 Climatic Conditions

Condition Extreme Max. Tmperature Extreme Min. Temperature Avereage Annual Precipitation Wind Speed

Measure 110ºF 28ºF 32.49 inches 4.8 mph

Source: Chamber of Commerce at www.austinchamber.org/Live_Work/ Austin_Lifestyle/Quick_Facts/index.pl#6 and the National Climate Data Center at www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Wind can be used in design to provide certain desired elements such as breeze corridors or porches that aid in the cooling process of the building. The highest winds have been recorded at 21 mph in Austin; the average wind speed is 4.8 mph.

Green Building The Austin Energy Green Building program has a rating system based on energy conservation, materials used, water quality and conservation, indoor air quality for health and safety. In addition, there is a category that evaluates how well this

24

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Figure 7.1 Southwest Trails Location Map

25 25

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Description of Southwest Trails in Austin, Texas Southwest Trails is a 28-wooded acre area development located on the southwest area of Austin, in the Oak Hill neighborhood. The project construction was completed in June 2001. This impressive community is located in a peaceful area surrounded by trees and with access to Old Bee Cave Road and Fletcher Lane. The entrance to the apartments provides a view to the hill country as the backdrop to the community.

square feet apartments rented for $580, 96 two-bedroom apartments, Plan B1 and B2, are 1030 square feet and 1038 square feet respectively, rented for $690, and 48 threebedroom 1194 square feet apartments rented for $775.

These prices were up to 40% below market price in the Summer 2003.

In August 2003, there was a 96% occupancy rate on the 160 unit apartment complex. Ten percent of the units were designed to meet the accessibility requirements. Some of the most remarkable and unique features of this community relate to the support available to the families and individuals living in Southwest Trails. The on-site Learning Center provides after school programs for children residents and neighbors during the school year as well as summer programs. This service allows parents to work regular schedules knowing their children are safe, and forego the cost of child care expenses. In addition, the children are in an extremely well equipped facility with trained and caring personnel.

The on-site Computer Center is available to residents and neighbors; these computers have access to the internet.

Residents in this community may not be able to afford internet connection charges from their home and may not have the opportunity of accessing the internet otherwise.

The availability of this resource in their community may make the difference in their search for job or resource opportunities.

Figure 7.2 Southwest Trails front view

Residents also have access to public transportation within 0.25 miles of the Southwest Trails community. The Capital Metro Route 30 is accessible to the residents and it travels to downtown Austin in 20 minutes with buses departing every 30 minutes on weekdays.

Figure 7.3 Southwest Trails Leasing Office

Of the 28 acres, only 10 acres are developed; the additional 18 acres are open space mostly accessible to the residents of the apartments via trails on the southwest side of the property. Southwest Trails provides a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments.

The community offers four floor plans: Plans A, B1, B2, and C. The rent prices for the Southwest community are very affordable compared to those in the area. The rent prices described in the following section were prices as of Summer 2003. The community is made up of 16 one-bedroom, 782

Figure 7.4 Children in the Learning Center enjoy the after-school programs offered by Foundation Communities in Southwest Trails.

26

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

The Southwest Trails community is located on the southwest area of Austin, 2 miles north of Highway 290 and a mile south of Highway 71 (see Figure 7.1). The community is part of census tract 19.0843, which covers a largely suburban area of town. The community is served by Old Bee Caves Road, which connects to Highway 290 on the southeast corner. The property is also located 2 miles northwest of the Edwards Aquifer; this posed some challenges for construction due in part to the Save Our Springs Ordinance (SOS) which aims to protect the recharge zone of the aquifer from residential or commercial contamination. SOS Ordinance poses restrictions on the amount of ground coverage or impervious cover.

Although the community is not directly on an endangered species area, the community is close to the habitat of an endangered species native to Texas, the golden-cheeked warbler. This was also considered during planning for site construction on the property.

and are high and not affordable for those living in the region.

The Southwest Trails development achieved its goal of economic integration by providing affordable rents in this area of Austin.

Table 7.3 Median Household and Family Income in 1999

Tract 19.08

Texas Median Household $101,477 $46,761 $39,927 Income Median Family $140,106 $58,555 $45,861 Income Source: 2000 Census. Retrieved from fatctfinder.census.gov/servlet/ GCTTable?_ts=81770749637 on July 2003.

Although the housing market conditions have changed since 2000, and occupancy rates are as low as 86% for the third quarter of 200345 in the Southwest area of Austin, the rental prices remain high in the region. The rent for a two bedroom apartment for 2003 in the Southwest area was around $0.85 per square foot, while the rent at the Southwest Trails community was approximately $0.66 per square foot.

Demographic and Economic Characteristics Table 7.2 Population in 2000

Area Travis County Tract 19.08

Travis County

Population 812,280 2,481

Table 7.4 Median Gross Rent, 2000 2000 US Census. Retrieved from factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ GCTTable?_ts=81770749637.

Tract Travis 19.08 County Texas Median Gross $1,255 Rent

The land area of Travis County is 989 square miles; tract 19.08 has an area of 12.74 square miles. The population density in Travis County is 821 persons per square mile compared to 195 persons in tract 19.08. This describes the character of the area as a very sparse community which has grown as a suburb of the City of Austin. Furthermore, the data in this section will reveal a general profile of the individuals who live in this tract.

The median age in the tract is 39 years of age; the percent of individuals between the ages of 45 and 64 is over 13%. In addition, 22.9% of the population is under 18 years of age, less than that of Travis County (23.8%) and Texas (28.3%).44 The ethnic make up of the tract reflects that 79% of the residents are white, 16% are Hispanic, other ethnic groups make up the other 5%. The residents of this area also earn a very high income compared to that of Travis County; the median household income is 2.2 times that of the median household income in Travis County (see Table 7.3).

$727

$574

*In the census data median gross rent includes utility payments. Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3(SF3), Financial Housing Characteristics.

Retrieved from www.census.gov on July 2003.Financial Housing Characteristics.

Rents in Travis County are not affordable. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), the Fair Market Rent (FMR) in 2001 for a two bedroom apartment in Travis County was $887. According to HUD, a unit is considered affordable if it costs no more than 30% of the renterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s income. The Area Median Family Income in Travis County (AMFI according to HUD) for 2001 was $66,800; a family earning 30% to 50% AMFI in Travis County would not be able to afford a two bedroom rent without burden (or paying more that 30% of their income). A family earning 30% AMFI would have to use 53% of their income to pay for the $887 two bedroom unit in Travis County.46

In the Southwest Trails tract, 27.3% of the vacant housing units were for rent in 2000; this means that tract 19.08 only had 18 units for rent in 2000, a very small number of units available for those attempting to rent. In addition to the low availability of rentals, the median gross rent for the tract was almost twice that of Travis County.

7.2

The rent prices are very high for families who have a lower income in this tract, in fact, the rents in Travis County were

27 27

Project Expenditures and Financing

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

The project was developed through multi-layered funding.

Some of the funding sources will be briefly described.

•

Private Activity Bonds Mortgage – Private Activity Bonds are taxable unless they meet the requirements of a ‘qualified private activity bond’ under Section 141 of the IRS code. 501(c)(3) bonds qualify under this category. These bonds are issued by a the Texas Department of Housing Community Affairs (TDHCA) to finance the organization’s activities, so long as these activities relate to the exempt purpose of the organization. In this case, Foundation Communities is a 501(c)(3) non-profit focusing on providing affordable housing and is using these bonds to meet this purpose.

•

Tax Credit Equity (4%) – Tax credits are different from tax deductions in the sense that a taxpayer is able to reduce his/her tax liability one dollar for every dollar of tax credits available. On the other hand, a tax deduction reduces the net taxable income or the ‘amount of money a taxpayer has to pay taxes on, not the liability itself.’47 A limited partnership is formed between a for-profit organization, which benefits from the tax credit and assumes the liability for the amount invested in the project, and a non-profit organization that can reserve the right to buy the property after a certain period of time. In the case of SWT the nonprofit partner was Foundation Communities. The SWT development benefited from a 4% tax credit equity since this was a new construction.

Additional funding sources include: Chartermac, Related Capitol Corporation, Bank of America, and the Austin Social Venture Partners.

Table 7.5 Southwest Trails Financing Summary49

•

City Funds (HOME and Trust Fund) – The HOME Program was created by Congress to encourage partnerships to meet community housing needs.

HOME provides federal grants to the City of Austin in order to increase homeownership and affordable housing opportunities for low and very-low income individuals and families. The HOME program requires that at least 90% of the families benefiting from HOME funds have a 60% AMFI or less. In SWT 100% of the residents have an AMFI not exceeding 60%. HOME funds can be used for acquisition of property, new construction, and direct assistance for low-income residents. In the case of SWT the HOME funds were used for construction costs.

Fund Sources Private Activity Bond Mortgage Earn-out Reserve Tax Credit Equity (4%) City Funds (HOME and Trust Fund) State Funds (Trust and Energy Funds) FedHome Loan Bank AHP – Wells Fargo Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Deferred Developer Fee Total Sources

Amount 6,100,000 400,000 3,500,000 1,000,000 865,000 500,000 200,000 1,600,000 14,165,000

•

State Funds (Trust and Energy Funds) – The State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) provided SWT a grant for $240,000 for energy-efficient measures integrated into the development. The energy-efficient features integrated into the development worthy of SECO funding were: insulation improvements, water heater system, and double-pane windows.

Table 7.6 Southwest Trails Financing Summary

Fund Uses Land Construction Costs Soft Costs – Professional Fees Finance Costs & Construction Interest Developer Fee Earn-out Reserve Total Uses

•

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation48 – (NRC) is a national non-profit organization which provides financial support, technical assistance, and training for community-based organizations. Local organizations that apply to join the NeighborWorks Network compete for grants related to operation, development of affordable housing, asset-building programs for low-income families and similar projects.

Recipient organizations are reviewed every two years.

28

Amount 1,000,000 9,515,000 650,000 1,000,000 1,600,000 400,000 14,165,000

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

7.3

Energy-Efficient and Green Building Design and Materials

7.3.6 HVAC The air conditioning system used is a 12 SEER. The Austin Energy Green Building program requires that the units be right sized using the Manual J calculation in order to determine the correct air conditioning unit for the apartment.

This section will describe the different green and energyefficient methods introduced in the construction of the Southwest Trails development. At the end of this section a summary chart of these features is presented.

7.3.1 Windows All windows in the units are double-paned windows and have solar screens covering them. This is an energy-efficient feature which increases the upfront costs by about $300 but is paid off in less then three years because the energy bills are reduced.

Figure 7.6 Energy-Efficient Water Heater

The water heater system shown below is a hydronic heating system. It serves as a water heater as well as a heater for the apartment. Hot water is pumped from the water heater to the air handling unit which transfers the heat to the air and distributes it to the conditioned space through ducts.

Figure 7.5 Window solar screens & light paint

7.3.7 Stormwater Management SWT has a stormwater management area at the front of the property is used to manage runoff from the adjacent property through their property as well as from SWTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own parking lot.

This water management feature was designed using the natural limestone from the region.

7.3.2 Fans There are fans in all major rooms which aid in the cooling of the home. Fans with the Energy Star label cost the sames as other fans.

7.3.3 Insulation All exterior walls are insulated (R-13) and all accessible ceilings or attic spaces are insulated with blown-in insulation of R-30.

The learning center has an R-19 insulation.

7.3.4 Thermostat These units have a programmable thermostat installed. This thermostat is connected to the City of Austin, which at peak times in the Summer can control some of the thermostat temperatures to prevent overwhelming the system. In addition, since this thermostat is programmable, a person may choose to program it to turn on and turn off while they are away etc. These programmable thermostats were provided by Austin Energy at no cost.

7.3.5 Paint The paint on the external siding of the units is light. It is recommended that the exterior of the units be light-colored as well as the roof.

Figure 7.7 Stormwater Management

29 29

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

Figure 7.10 Open Space

Part of the land is also used as a walking trail (Figure 7.10) accessible only to residents of Southwest Trails. Children enjoy a large space to play, a playground, and a small basketball court.

Figure 7.8 Managing Runoff

7.4 Challenges, Solutions and Future Project Suggestions

7.3.8 Water Efficiency: Detention Pond Southwest Trails has a detention pond in the lowest area of the property to collect rain and runoff from impervious surfaces. The stormwater is held in the basin and it slowly percolates and filtrates through the native deep-rooted vegetation, which holds together the soil preventing erosion.

This system also allows the water to travel more slowly than it would through a gutter or storm sewer. The water collected is used to irrigate the undeveloped portion of the property.

The location of the community posed challenges since this area falls under the city of Austin’s Endangered Species Ordinance; endangered species exist west of the Balcones Escarpment and in lands lying within the Edwards Aquifer.

An endangered species habitat survey was conducted for the presence of golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo; it was found that the presence of these songbirds was ‘extremely unlikely’.47 The presence of the plant species that are of concern to the City of Austin because of their scarcity was highly unlikely. Furthermore, the presence of the karsts invertebrate species, which occurs in caves and subsurface voids of the Edwards Formation, was reported to be highly unlikely as well.

In addition, the property lies 2 miles northwest from the Edwards Aquifer; this posed some challenges for construction due in part to the Save Our Springs Ordinance (SOS) which aims to protect the recharge zone of the aquifer from residential or commercial contamination. SOS Ordinance poses restrictions on the amount of ground coverage or impervious cover; although the community is not directly on the Edwards Aquifer, there were considerations taken during the site planning stages of the project. Moreover, the wet-weather creek on the property limited the construction; building on both sides of the creek would significantly increase the cost of development, but building on one side only would surpass the impervious cover required by SOS. To resolve this conflict Foundation Communities purchased additional land and sited the buildings in a creative arrangement in order not to cross the creek. In addition, three-story building apartments were built to reduce the amount of ground coverage by the structures and maintain the number of affordable units that were planned.

Figure 7.9 Detention Pond

7.3.9 Quality of Life In addition to the socioeconomic support provided by this community, the open space available to the residents provides a high quality of life. As previously mentioned, 18 acres of land were dedicated to open space. There are open areas for residents to bar-b-que in the back of the property and play recreational sports.

30

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

The development of SWT was a rich learning experience for Foundation Communities; the organization confronted issues such as the Endangered Species Ordinance and the SOS ordinance which they had not encountered in such level of detail before. Foundation Communities actively searches for sources of funding in line with their goals. As part of the organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources for building SWT, Foundation Communities sought out and obtained funding from the State Energy Conservation Office (SECO). Using these funds and following the guidelines of the grant,

Foundation Communities integrated energy-efficient features at no cost to them. However, they recognize that SWT could have benefited from greater energy-efficient features and passive solar design. In order to address this concern Foundation Communities has recently hired an architecture intern who has focused on green building during his graduate studies and career. He is integrating green building practices into designs for new learning centers and housing, as well as renovations and capitol improvements to existing properties.

Table 7.7 Summary of Energy-Efficient and Green Building Features in Case Study 2

Feature Insulation R-values

HVAC

Water Efficiency Efficient Appliances Windows Paint Landscape Building Orientation

Other

Description R-13 in residences walls R-30 in accessible ceilings/attic space R-19 in the Learning Center Exterior doors are insulated Air conditioning with a cooling efficiency of 12.0 SEER Aquatherm hot water heater Programmable thermostat Ceiling fans in all major rooms Storm water management through a waterdetention pond on the property required by SOS. Water is pumped to the hiking area.

Energy Guide Label on water heater.

Cost Upfront/Long Term SECO grant.

Double pane windows Solar screens on all windows Standard paint. Siding has light-colored paint.

Changing landscape to more native vegetation.

No consideration for orientation, however, a variance was given to Foundation Communities due to site restrictions. A wet weather creek bisects the property; construction over this creek would have substantially increased the construction costs. A variance for a slightly higher density, offset by the 16 undeveloped acres on the other side of the creek, was granted.

Ten of twenty-eight acres were used for the development and development does not cross Williamson Creek.

SWT is close to the habitat of the Goldencheeked Warbler habitat, endangered species native to Texas.

SECO grant.

31 31

SECO grant â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Austin Energy Incentive Program.

The detention pond system required by SOS cost $200,000.

Energy savings for tenants.

No additional cost.

Future water conservation.

Saved on construction costs.

A $40,000 mitigation fee was paid by City of Austin on behalf of SWT to the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (BCCP) to buy more Golden Cheeked Warbler habitat.

Foundation Communities purchased additional land in order to comply with SOS.

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

8.

Conclusion Recommendations

and

contractor the subcontractors (plumbing, electricity, air conditioning) and their personnel. Articulation of technological changes through this structure can be cumbersome. The process of constructionis also somewhat compartmentalized; the architect communicates changes to the engineer for structural approval and gives them to the contractor for implementation. Usually, the general contractor communicates changes to the different subcontractors individually. This prescribes a process in which the input from a subcontractor specialized in one area does not get to share their input laterally with other subcontractors. Finally, individuals in this business have a unique ‘culture’ and have been working in the field and performing jobs in a specific manner; change is not easily introduced or well received in this medium.

This paper has focused on identifying green building and energy-efficient methods and materials available for the construction of affordable housing and presenting case studies of specific development projects which have attempted to integrate these techniques. Drawing together the main findings of the paper in this conclusion, some thoughts on challenges and struggles and possible areas of research are explored. First, it is important to highlight that there are ways of integrating green building and energy-efficient changes at low or no cost into the construction of affordable housing.

Second, there is an inclination by the industry and the users to implement and utilize energy-efficient technologies and appliances over green building processes and materials. Third, there is a marked tension between making initial investments with long term pay and maintaining affordability of homes.

Fourth, the nature of the building industry presents some challenges that impact the rate at which changes can be made.

Fifth, government funding is necessary for the introduction of changes in the construction of affordable housing.

Affordable housing developers rely to a high degree on some level of either federal, state, or city funds. The introduction of energy efficient and green building methods with perhaps higher upfront costs requires higher government subsidies or they are highly unlikely to occur. Even if changes are of no additional cost based on the design element changed or added, there is a cost related to the time required for consultation and training before implementation.

Use of energy-efficient items is favored over green building processes and materials and some rationale can be associated with this choice. There is significant information regarding energy-efficient appliances including current prices and the short or long term savings they yield. Thus, energy-efficiency contains a narrower concept with quantifiable results while green building is a category with a variety of elements which may not be as easy to quantify. Furthermore, consumers have direct access to these products i.e. energy efficient appliances, computers etc. and this visibility makes these products more marketable. Finally, the topic of energy efficiency has been addressed at a national level and as such it is backed up by public policy and dollars; more explicitly the industry is based on a partnership between the public and the private sectors which is a large attribute to its success.

Recommendations Specific lessons for future projects encompassing the entire cycle of assessment, planning, finance, design, implementation, construction and testing or reassessment can be learned through the case studies and the interviews conducted. In the assessment phase, for example, it is important to keep, environmental and code constraints or changes, of the site or the region in mind. During the planning stages of the project all the team members, including contractors, should be included in order to establish the scope of the project and ensure the understanding of the changes by all parties. The scope of the project should account for the time investment modifications to the ‘model home’ will take because different experts are involved in the process. Assess the cost and time required to implement the changes and define whether these changes could be applied and reproduced in a large scale throughout the housing stock produced. During this step the availability of materials and local suppliers should also be considered to avoid delays or increased transportation costs.

Non-profit affordable housing producers are limited in their ability to introduce new technologies because of the limitations imposed by the low income of the families they serve. As mentioned in the case studies and through Life Cycle Cost analysis, the building modifications, appliances and technologies may take a few months to be paid off. Since, the higher upfront cost may not be passed on to the customers; organizations have found ways to offset the upfront costs.

The creative solutions to this challenge range from finding additional traditional funding sources or applying for funds earmarked for energy-efficient projects, to partnering with the public sector for consulting, funding, and labor purposes, and taking advantage of city programs and private business partners to receive free items.

Features should be introduced slowly. For example, begin by making changes only to the building envelope in steps by implementing the framing modifications. These framing modifications would have to be communicated to the construction team; once a few homes have been constructed with the new framing technique, then other modifications can be introduced. Secondly, introduce

The building industry’s infrastructure adds an element of interference with the establishment of new technologies. The hierarchical nature of construction establishes a top down communication pattern, from the architect or engineer to the

32

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

changes to the building envelope by increasing the insulation; these changes would have to be communicated to the insulation subcontractors. Begin with small changes that perhaps have short term measurable results to increase buyin from the contractor as well as the owner or renter.

deal. Lenders and financial institutions should establish financing schedules sensitive to the Life Cycle Cost of energy-efficient and green building elements introduced in the homes.

Overall, there is interest in the building, designing, planning and housing industries to achieve better quality housing and reduce the negative impact humans have on the environment and at the same time improving quality of life.

However, in order for the new energy-efficient and green building technologies to become established, policies favoring them, backed with funding and requiring specific

Non-profit builders should establish strict baselines, clear record-keeping of the design changes, life-cycle estimates and actual costs and savings, and have solid data collected for future grant requests.

Non-profit builders who provide renter and home-owner education could emphasize as part of the curriculum the importance and benefits of having energy-efficient appliances, practicing water conservation, and energy conservation. For example, the city of Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Green Building program offers seminars available to builders, engineers, home owners and others who want to learn about green building practices, some seminars are free. For an architect to maintain his/her license they must earn a certain number of Community Education Units (CEUs) a year; these seminars not only educate but also serve those who engage in the program. Perhaps, these requirements and rewards should be replicated for the licensing of others involved in the construction and affordable housing field.

evaluation methods need to be implemented.

ENDNOTES 1

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. The Brundtland Report: Our Common Future. www.un.org/esa/sustdev/

2

California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2003.

Introduction to Sustainable Design form California Sustainable Design Training 2001 from the California Integrated Waste Management Board. www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/ Training

3

Austin Sustainable Building Coalition. 2003. www.greenbuilder.com/sbc

Most of the energy code language described in section 3.4 is prescriptive; the advantage to having prescriptive energy codes is that it is easier to transfer the knowledge when there are specific instructions on how to accomplish a task. However, this prescriptive approach limits creative design alternatives which would achieve the same goal or provide better results.

Currently, the code specifies that municipalities may adopt more stringent energy-efficient requirements through an amendment process reviewed by the Energy Laboratory Systems of Texas A&M. Perhaps the agency designated by the legislature to be responsible for code implementation.

Through this avenue localities have the opportunity to include specific prescriptive language and craft amendments with language that also allows for flexibility.

4

National Renewal Energy Laboratory. 2003. Clean Energy Basics: What is Renewable Energy? www.nrel.gov/ clean_energy/whatis_re.html

5

Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University. Senate Bill 5, Enbacted by the 77th Texas Legislature. 2001. http:// eslsb5.tamu.edu/sbill5/download/SB5_Overview.pdf

6

Texas Department of Insurance. 2004. Wndstorm Inspection Program - General Information, Building Specifications. www.tdi.state.tx.us/company/wind/geninfo.html#scope

7

City of Austin. 2003. Green by Design 7 Steps to Green Building. www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/downloads/ 7steps.pdf.

In addition, programs such as the S.M.A.R.T Housing Initiative should be replicated and enhanced. Introduction of energy-efficient and green building features in exchange for fee waivers and consultation, training, or professional development opportunities on energy-saving or green building technologies and design, at a reduced or no fee, from the city would benefit other locales. This is probably an area where room for pubic, private and non-profit venues could work to remove the burden from the public sector and take advantage of the expertise and capacity of the private and non-profit sectors. The city would continue its function of approving and supplying the fee waivers and permits, however, the nonprofit organization would establish programs, training and services to the developers through funding from private partnerships.

8

US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Building Technologies Program. 2003.

Building Toolbox. www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ index.cfm?flash=yes

9

US Green Building Council, US Department of Energy, and US Enironmental Protection Agency. 1996. Sustainable Building Technical Manual. Public Technology Inc,. www.sustainable.doe.gov/pdf/sbt.pdf

10

Air Conditioning Contractors of America. 2003. Heat Gain and Loss Form. www.mrhvac.com 11

Austin Energy. 2003. Green Building Program- SingleFamily Residential Rating. Version 7.0.

12

As mentioned previously and illustrated through the case studies, multi-layered financing is in most cases the only mechanism to support an affordable housing development

33 33

Ibid

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES 13

Ibid Ibid 15 Ibid 14

30

Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Table P4 Hispanic or Latino. factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ DTTable?_ts=75117332650 and DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics from factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ QTTable?_ts=76336856367

16

Xeriscape is a word derived from the combination of a Greek word “Xeros” meaning dry and “scape” from the word “landscape.” Colorado Springs Utilities defines Xeriscape as an attractive, sustainable landscape that conserves water and is based on sound horticultural practices. Retrieved from www.csu.org/ xeri/ on June 13, 2003.

31

Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Table P7 Average Household Size, Table H3 Occupancy Status Table H10, Total Population in Occupied Housing Units Retrieved July 1, 2003 fromfactfinder.census.gov/servlet/ DTTable?_ts=75119726580 and factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ DTTable?_ts=76348612761

17

Southface Energy Institute. “Energy Efficiency Makes Homes More Affordable” Energy Technical Magazine (1998):17. www.southface.org/home/sfpubs/techshts/sav_nrg$.pdf

32

18

Austin Energy. 2003. Water Conservation. www.ci.austin.tx.us/ watercon.

Buckner Children and Family Services. The Colonias: Living the American Dream. Bucner Today magazine. Fall 1996 issue.

Retrieved on July 21, 2003 from chud.tamu.edu/files/buckner2.html

19

33

Tree Media Group. Global Green USA. 2003. Top 20 No or Low-Cost Green Building Strategies. www.globalgreen.org/ programs/20ways.html

Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data, Tables H47 Plumbing Facilities and H50 Kitchen Facilities. Retrieved July 21, 2003 from factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ DTTable?_ts=76858945837

20

Team Concrete Building Community. NDA. www.teamconcrete.org/abouthomes_basic.html

34 Housing Urban Development. Retrieved from www.huduser.org/datasets/il/fmr00/incfy00.xls on December 11, 2003.

21

US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology. 2004. Strawbale. www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ documents/strawbale.cfm

35

Texas Revisions to the International Residential Code and the International Building Code Effective February 1, 2003. www.tdi.state.tx.us/company/wind/downloads.html

22

International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol, Inc. 2003. www.ipmvp.org/Documents/ipmvp-vol1.pdf

36

As per communication with Gordon Tully, SWA architect on August 2003.

23

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2003. Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Office of Applied Economics.

Building for Environmental and Ecvonomic Sustainability. www.bfrl.nist.gov/info/software.html.

37

As per interview with Nick Mitchell-Bennett on July 2003.

38

Studor Inc. 2003. www.studor.com

24

Stephen Winter Associates, Inc. 2002 Building America Field Project: Results for the Consortium for Advanced Residential Building (CARB), January to October 2001. National Renewable Energy.

39

CDC of Brownsville/PATH Poster. 2003. Air Admittance Valves.

40

According to the US Census Bureau, this location was considered to be part of tract 19.02 in 1990.

25

US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology. 2004. Energy Efficiency Pays: Systems Approach Cuts Home Energy Waste and Saves Money. Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS) Technology Fact Sheet. www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/ 26290.pdf

41

2000 US Census. Median Age. factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ GCTTable?_ts=81774272743 42

Austin Investor Interests. 2003 The Austin Multi-Family Trend Report.

26 Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS). 1999. Building America: Cost Saving System Trade-Offs for Mixed Climates. Case Study Fact Sheet. www.nrel.gov/docs/ fy99osti/26536.pdf

43 Out of Reach 2001: America’s Growing Wage-Rent Disparity.

2001. NLIHC. www.nlihc.org

27

44 Hecht, Bennett. 1999. Developing Affordable Housing: A Practical Guide for Nonprofit Organizations. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.

Census designated place (CDP) A statistical entity, defined for each decennial census according to Census Bureau guidelines, comprising a densely settled concentration of population that is not within an incorporated place, but is locally identified by a name. CDPs are delineated cooperatively by state and local officials and the Census Bureau. Beginning with Census 2000 there are no size limits. Census 2000. factfinder.census.gov

45

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC). 2003. www.nw.org/network/aboutus/about.html.

46

28 US Census. Historical Population Counts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48061lk.html

47

Foundation Communities. SWT Ribbon-cutting brochure.

SWCA. 2000. Environmental Assessment in Accordance with the City of Austin Land Development Code for the Approximate 28-Acre Southwest Trails Property, Austin, Travis County, Texas.

29

US Census 2000. Age. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/ 48/48061.html

34

35 35

Airtight building envelope, fresh air ventilation, Builder is guaranteed a pressure-balancing, improved insulation system, specific amount of energy properly sized and installed mechanical systems, used for heating and cooling. and moisture management including vapor barriers and drainage planes.

Resources/Partners: http://208.254.22.6/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=n ew_homes_partners.s howHomesSearch

www.energystar.gov

Resources/Partners: www.eere.energy.gov /buildings/building _america/whoweare. shtml

www.eere.energy.gov /buildings/building _ america/

Contact

asp?id=1479

Resources/Partners :www.pathnet.org/sp.

Home Page: www.pathnet.org

EFL homes offer a Two- $250-$500 charged to Home Page: or Three-Year Heating builder for plan review. www.eflhome.com/ef and Cooling Energy Use Insulation installation, l_index.asp testing and inspection Limited Guarantee companies are required depending on the to complete a training builderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level of program. participation in the program.

Partnership for Advancing Public-private initiative with emphasis on the use PATH is a voluntary PATH is a voluntary PATH ensures that Technology in Housing of technologies to improve the quality, durability, partnership through which homeowners and the partnership.

(PATH) energy efficiency, environmental performance, teams from the general public are aware and affordability of homes. PATH provides the homebuilding, product of major changes in latest information on innovative building manufacturing, insurance, homebuilding materials, processes, and systems. PATH also and financial industries join technology. showcases innovative housing projects that can forces with representatives of Homeowners and serve as models for builders and homeowners Federal agencies concerned developers can consider across the country. with housing to explore and the long-term costs of Promote focused, cooperative housing research apply new technologies. their homes and ask among industry, government, and university builders to use improved partners. technologies.

Environments For Living (EFL)

Cooperative program between the EPA and the The ENERGY STAR ENERGY STAR Voluntary program.

USDOE. The performance target is 30% less qualified new homes use The homes are labeled program delivers the energy use for heating, cooling and water heating technical information and substantially less energy with the Energy Star than a reference home based on the Model tools that organizations and for heating, cooling, and label.

Energy Code. water heating. consumers need to choose energy-efficient solutions and Homeowners can expect best management practices. to save about $200-$400 annually on their utility bills.

Energy Star Homes

Increases quality, Free of charge. comfort and Currently, there are 5 performance without teams made up of increasing cost; does not architects, engineers, detract from the homeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planners, builders, aesthetic value; reduces suppliers and mortgage utility bills; and allows lenders representing greater financing more than 150 options. companies.

Reduces construction costs and callback and warranty problems. Improves productivity and building performance.

Allows innovative financing due to predictable lower utility bills.

Gives builders a competitive advantage.

Industry driven, private/public partnership sponsored by the USDOE. The goal of the program is to produce resource efficient, environmentally sensitive, affordable and adaptable residences on a community scale.

Building America must, at a minimum, meet the same performance standard as Energy Star Homes and, having done so, may carry the Energy Star rating. However, the Building America program is entirely performance-based.

Fees/Agreement

Building America

Benefits to Homeowner/Renter

Benefits to Builder

Goal

Organization

APPENDIX A: ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING PROGRAMS

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

36

Texas Department of This website provides insurance Insurance information to the public and provides specific documentation regarding the latest Texas revisions to the International Residential Code and the International Building Code.

This agency does not provide specific training.

However, staff are available to answer questions regarding insurance and insurance companies at 1.800.735.2989. TDI also has a Market Program which aims to link consumers who live in underserved areas to insurance companies; information available at 1.888.799.6277.

Promotes the efficient use of energy, Training workshops are available for builders, while protecting human health, safety, engineers, architects, building officials regarding the new Texas residential and commercial energy and the environment. codes.

Homeowners living in Texas coastal regions may qualify for Texas windstorm and hail insurance; TDI offers inspections.

www.tdi.state.tx.us General Information 1.800.735.2989 Insurance Help: 1.888.799.6277 Wind Inspections: 1.800.248.6032

Training workshop fee is www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us $50 for public institutions and $150 for any others.

State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) Texas

Southface Energy Institute Energy Efficiency

The USDOE provides training materials for national distribution. Training materials cover IECC 2000 code, ASHRAE Standards, and case study presentations using the COMcheck and REScheck.

www.energycodes.gov Training materials are Compliance tools are available for free downloading and may be available at www.energycodes.gov/co modified without mpliance_tools.stm permission from www.energycodes.gov/trai ning/presentations.stm www.southface.org Atlanta Southface promotes sustainable Training on Green Building is provided to builders Details on website homes, work places and communities who are members of the EarthCraft House. through education, research, advocacy and technical assistance.

This website is primarily a resource of tools to facilitate energy code compliance, development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyEnergy Codes

Website/Contact

Information available to homeowners, Green Building materials and methods, This is a voluntary www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenb uilder/staff.htm renters and members of the design and workshops on insulation, passive solar design, program for builders, building profession, to design and build sustainability and others are available. architects, and engineers in with health, energy-efficiency and the A checklist for Green home considerations is the Austin Energy service environment in mind. The Austin available at area. Members are Energy Green Building Program is www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/checklist.htm required to attend the known for expertise in “green” “Green Building Basics” A list of green building members such as architects, course, and attend a residential and commercial engineers, designers, builders, suppliers, construction. minimum of two free consultants, mortgage lenders, and realtors can be technical seminars per found at year. Members pledge to www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/members.htm actively promote green building practices in their business.

Fees/Agreement

Green Building Program in Austin

Training Areas

Goal

Organization

APPENDIX B: ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

37 37

USDOE - Rebuild America, Energy Efficient Retrofit USDOE - Smart Communities & Affordable Housing USEPA and National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST), USEPA and National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)

USDOE - High Performance Buildings USDOE - International Performance Measure Measurement and Verification Protocol USDOE - Life-Cycle Cost Analysis USDOE - Million Solar Roofs

USDOE, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program USDOE - Building America Performance Analysis USDOE - Cost Analysis Methods

S.M.A.R.T Housing Policy

Institutions/Programs Energy Inspectors FannieMae - The Energy Efficient MortgageTM (EEM), MyCommunityMortgage Energy Efficient MortgageTM, and The Smart Commuter MortgageTM

Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) 3.0: software that allows for the user to select cost-effective and environmentally preferred building products.

Software packages for evaluation of economic analysis and advanced research materials and performance analysis.

The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) offers this program designed to encourage energy-efficiency in low-income homes in Texas. Families at or below 125% of the federal poverty guideline are eligible to apply for the program and benefit from weatherization systems.

On-line life cycle cost analysis calculator.

Energy to install solar energy systems on one million U.S. buildings by 2010. Website includes case studies, seminars, conferences and financing available.

Resources available to evaluate, search systems, find financing, and install energy efficient systems in buildings using older technology.

A clear list of elements of no upfront cost for green building and energy efficiency.

Website listing other website resources with information regarding performance analysis and testing of energy efficient systems for commercial construction.

Manual for the Standardized Payback Equation to evaluate energy efficiency for buildings.

Content Information on energy inspection and examples of cost analysis for energy efficient systems.

The EEM allows borrowers to qualify for a larger mortgage as a result of the energy savings.

The EEM benefits those buying new, energy-efficient homes or those purchasing existing homes that need energy improvements. The Partnership for Advanced Technologies in Housing (PATH) promotes awareness of the benefits lenders, insurers, and utilities offer through the EEM program. (EEM) is designed specifically for borrowers who are at or below 100 percent of area median income (AMI), with exceptions for high-cost areas. There is also no income limit for properties located in FannieNeighborsÂŽ areas.

The Smart Commute Mortgage is designed to encourage homeownership in neighborhoods near public transit; savings related to public transportation are taken into account.

Safe, Mixed income, Accessible, Reasonably priced, Transit oriented (S.M.A.R.T) City of Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s policy was created to encourage the production of housing for low and moderateincome residents. The City of Austin provides fee waivers and speedier review of the development for subdivisions or infill development.

This website provides guidance on financing energy-efficient buildings, and explains financing options such as: internal funds, debt financing, lease or lease-purchase agreements, energy performance contracts, and utility incentives.

Website listing other website resources with information regarding performance analysis and testing of energy-efficient systems for residential construction.

Detailed description of the evaluation methods for energy efficiency in buildings.

www.tdhca.state.tx.us/ea.htm#consumerWAP

www.bfrl.nist.gov/info/software.html

www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees.html

www.buildinggreen.com/features/lc/low_cost.cfm

www.rebuild.org/awson/energyefficiency.asp

www.rebuild.org/awson/lifecyclecost.asp www.millionsolarroofs.com

www.ipmvp.org/info/ipmvp.pdf

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/per formance_analysis.shtml www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/design/wholebuilding /costanalysis.cfm www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/highperformance/

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/plan/financing

www.cityofaustin.org/housing

www.fanniemae.com/housingcommdev/solutions/env ironment.jhtml

Website www.energyinspectors.com/about.asp www.fanniemae.com/newsreleases/2002/2199.jhtml

APPENDIX C: ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING FINANCING AND EVALUATION RESOURCES

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

38

US Green Building Council

USEPA USEPA - Green Communities US Green Building Council

Renewable Energy Policy Project Rezachek & Associates’ Energy and Environmental Resources State of California Green Building Program Straw Bale Association of Texas USDOE - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energies USDOE - Rebuild America

Oak Ridge National Building Technology Center

Maryland Department of Natural Resources Institute of Building Sciences

Energy Efficient Building Association (EEBA) Home Energy Online Magazine

Building and Fire Research Laboratory Built Green Colorado California Integrated Waste Management Boa Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems Center for Resourceful Building Technology City of Portland - Office of Sustainable Development Energy Efficiency in Mississippi

Building Green Building Green

American Solar Energy Society Austin Connection - Green Building Program Building America Documents

Resource Affordable Housing Design Advisor (HUD)

www.cmpbs.org

Alternative building and design center, normally works on large projects. Rewriting the alternative building codes for Texas.

A project of the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) dedicated to promoting environmentally responsible practices in construction.

City of Portland’s website featuring case studies, financial incentives from the city and the state, technologies available and technical assistance.

Information on Energy Efficient Ratings and mortgages in Mississippi

solstice.crest.org www.greenclips.com/ www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GreenBuilding www.greenbuilder.com/sbat/ www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo

Provides information about the initiatives and programs in California and in the nation.

Provides information and resources that promote straw bale construction.

Consumer information regarding renewable energy resources. Energy-saving design, appliances, alternative fuels, waste management, recycling and other topics on green building and energy efficiency.

USDOE program focused on energy efficient solutions. It helps to identify regional resources, connect with suppliers and provide technical assistance.

Offers information on green buildings, materials, renewable energy, water conservation and other related topics.

Information for communities to become green communities.

The USBC members work to produce materials, policies, and marketing tools in order to produce sustainable buildings that are in compliance with the LEED Green Building rating.

Lists case studies, statistics and other reference materials focusing on energy-efficiency performance and costsavings for commercial buildings.

www.usgbc.org/Resources/research.asp

www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/homes.htm www.epa.gov/greenkit/index.html www.usgbc.org

www.rebuild.org/index.asp

www.ornl.gov/ORNL/BTC/

www.wbdg.org

www.dnr.state.md.us/smartgrowth/ed/

homeenergy.org/hewebsite

www.erha.com/mississippi/codes/marketpla ce.htm www.eeba.org

www.green-rated.org/g_rated/grated.html

The WBDG is a web-based portal containing government and industry practitioners with access to information on a wide range of building-related guidance, criteria and technology from a 'whole buildings' perspective.

The Buildings Technology Center (BTC) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a U.S. research facility devoted to the development of technologies that improve the energy efficiency and environmental compatibility of residential and commercial buildings.

REPP supports the advancement of renewable energy technology through policy research.

Summary of news on sustainable development, government policies, and products. Listserv for free.

Organization promoting awareness, education and development of energy efficient homes. Members include architects, builders, developers, manufacturers, engineers, and educators.

Home Energy magazine's mission is to disseminate information about residential energy conservation, performance, and comfort.

Information on design, resources, materials, and architects.

www.builtgreen.org www.ciwmb.ca.gov

Information on Colorado’s green build program including checklist to evaluate energy efficiency Green Building and Construction website includes case studies, publications, guidelines, programs and resources.

www.crbt.org

www.bfrl.nist.gov

pix.nrel.gov:8020/BASIS/nich/www/bapubl ic/SF www.buildinggreen.com www.greenclips.com

www.ases.org www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/orgs.htm

Website www.designadvisor.org

A database which contains technical reports, magazine and newspaper articles, project summaries, bulletins, and much more.

Provides information regarding environmental building news, products, websites and books.

A summary of news on sustainable building design and related government and business issues published every two weeks by email.

An agency studying building materials and testing the performance of new technologies.

Content A site developed by HUD with Enterprise Foundation, AIA, LISC, NRC, NCCED and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston. Step-by-step detailed guide outlining how to integrate green building practice from the beginning of the process.

A national organization focused on the advancement of solar energy use.

City of Austin Green Building Program resource list of builders, designers and providers for the Austin Metro area.

APPENDIX D: ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING GENERAL WEBSITE RESOURCES

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

TEXAS CDCS: FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

APPENDIX E: CITY OF AUSTIN’S GREEN BUILDING CHECKLIST The Green Building Program from the City of Austin provides a checklist (in no particular order) for customers to evaluate how ‘green’ their Austin home is:

Evaluation of Green Building Site

# # # #

Interior

#

Plant water-efficient Bermuda or buffalo grass in sunny areas.

Plants, shrubs and trees that grow successfully in your area.

Plant shade trees on the east and west side of the house.

Gutters and downspouts direct water away from the house.

# # # # #

Design

# # # # # # #

Longest walls face north and south.

Most windows face north and south.

Most windows are shaded on the outside by overhangs, covered porches, awnings, trees, or trellises.

Garage and least-used rooms are positioned on the west side to buffer the rest of the house from west sun.

Most windows are operable and positioned to facilitate cross breezes.

Most rooms have windows in two walls.

High, centrally-located, operable windows enable hot air to move up and vent to the outside.

Local Economy Regional materials such as mesquite, native cedar, pecan wood, local brick, limestone and granite, are used (Central Texas).

Heating and Cooling # Ceiling fans in all major rooms. # Cooling system is right sized for the house using the Manual J calculation. # Air filter is accessible and easy to change.

Lifestyle

# # # # # # # #

Exterior

# # # # # # #

The flooring is mostly a hard surface, such as concrete, tile or wood.

Other flooring materials are natural wood, jute, seagrass, cork, or true linoleum.

No vinyl wallpaper is used in the home.

Bath has exhaust fan vented to outside.

Cooktop has exhaust fan vented to outside.

Laundry/utility room has exhaust fan vented to outside

Light-colored paint, siding and roof are used.

A continuous vent strip runs underneath the roof overhang to let air into the attic.

Roof ridge has continuous strip of venting or several passive vents close to the ridge.

Attic insulation does not block air flow path between roof overhang vents and ridge vents.

Unshaded windows have solar screens or low-e glass (except on the north side).

No skylights except solar tubes (solar tubes are okay) Window frames are wood, vinyl or fiberglass.

39 39

Front porch big enough to use.

Traffic allows safe walking and biking.

Diverse architecture.

Convenient to shopping.

Convenient to entertainment.

Convenient to jobs.

Convenient to parks and trails.

Convenient to public transportation.

CDCS IN TEXAS: FINDING ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND GREEN BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

TACDCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Research Program is supported in part by:

T HE TACDC C OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROUNDTABLE

Irvin Ashford Comerica Bank

Dianne McKinney Compass Bank

Jeff Baloutine The Enterprise Foundation

Mahesh Aiyer Washington Mutual

Sharon Baranofsky Rural LISC

Gloria Sanderson New Foundations/LISC

James Feild Bank of America

Paula Sullivan Chase Bank

Maria Brewster Fannie Mae

Jana Teis Wells Fargo Bank

J.O.T. Couch Texas Interfaith Housing

Linda Walker Guaranty Bank

Ernesto de la Garza Neighborhood Reinvestment

David Wood Bank One

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS 1021 East 7th Street, Suite 104 Austin, Texas 78702 (512) 457-8232 (512) 479-4090 - fax info@tacdc.org www.tacdc.org

40