Sustainability Performance Metrics

Sustainability Performance Metrics

FCM Webinar October 31, 2013

Implementing the

Measuring Sustainability Performance of New Development in Brampton, Richmond Hill and Vaughan

Outline

of presentation

1. Project goals and context

2. Project phases and deliverables

Measuring the Sustainability Performance of New Development

Brampton, Richmond Hill and Vaughan – Performance Metrics

• Provide municipal staff with tools to guide and quantify the sustainability performance of new developments

• Provide the development industry with a consistent set of sustainability guidelines and metrics across 3 municipalities.

• Value-added elements of the project include: • Municipal collaboration;

• Metric testing in staff workshops;

• Excel tool for scoring applications (consultant addition);

• Alignment with objectives of health agencies.

3

 Bill 51 amendments to Planning Act provide for exterior sustainable design elements as part of Site Plan Control;  Municipalities leading this effort include Toronto (Toronto

Green Standard), Pickering (Sustainable Development

Guidelines), Oakville, Markham, East Gwillimbury and others

 FCM grant awarded in December 2010 and partner MOU

signed in January 2011

 Phase 1 underway in 2011 and Phase 2 underway in 2012  Third and final Milestone Report and Completion Report

submitted to FCM to mark project completion

Phase 1 – Brampton’s SCDG’s

• Sustainable Community Development Guidelines (SCDGs) prepared for Brampton

• SCDGs set out the qualitative preferences for the physical design of the built environment which set the framework for the Phase 2 work

Process of Developing Sustainability Metrics

 Determine Municipal sustainability priorities;

 Bench Mark – other municipal guidelines, provincial

legislation;

 Understanding municipal current practices;  Understanding development industry practices;  Iteration, upon iteration, upon iteration……..

Municipal Priorities and Bench Marking

• Each municipality conducted interdepartmental meetings throughout the project

• All 50 Metrics were vetted and tested in:

• 3 municipal staff workshops • 3 Developer Forums

• 80% of Targets relate to

Sustainability Performance Metrics - Structure

• 3 Performance Tiers

• Mandatory Requirements - existing standard or requirement

based on relevant legislation

• Recommended minimum – “doing better than you have to”

• Aspirational – “best in class”.

• Static Tool similar to a traditional checklist

• Dynamic Tool based in Excel

• Points system used to quantify how well developments achieve

“recommended minimum” or “aspirational” metrics

• “Recommended minimum” or “aspirational” metrics do not need

to be met for all metrics (i.e. different approach than Tier 1 and 2

• Excel Spreadsheet – easy to update and conform to changing targets • Differentiates plan types and users

• Tool is divided into the 4 core themes and quantifies and scores sustainability performance

• Measures compliance against mandatory requirements • Identifies Minimum and Aspirational Thresholds

• Provides opportunity to identify scenarios for plan improvements

Pedestrian Connections - Proximity to School

Are 50% of dwelling units within 800 meters walking distance of public/private elementary, montessori, and middle

schools?

Yes

Are 50% of dwellings units within 1600 meters of

public/private high schools? Yes

Are 75% of dwelling units within 400 meters walking distance of public/private elementary, montessori, and middle

schools?

No

Are 75% of dwellings units within 1000 meters of

public/private high schools? No

Dynamic Tool : Example Question

Implementation –

Existing planning application review process

(Confirm which of 8 IGMS Criteria are to be provided)

Approve/Deny If Approve, allocate all units

OR Allocate certain number of units, and place (H) on balance of development DEV’T APPLICATION REVIEW COMMITTEE (DARC) SUBMISSION REQ’TS LETTER (Includes requirement

INQUIRY (via counter, phone, website ) SUBMISSION (Deemed Complete) PRE-SUBMISSION MEETING CIRCULATION/ COMMENT PERIOD INFO REPORT RECOMM’N REPORT SYNTHESIZE COMMENTS, REVISE PLAN, & CONFIRM IGMS

(Confirm which of 8 IGMS Criteria are to be provided)

Approve/Deny If Approve, allocate all units

OR Allocate certain number of units, and place (H) on balance of development DEV’T APPLICATION REVIEW COMMITTEE (DARC) SUBMISSION REQ’TS LETTER (Includes requirement

for IGMS Letter)

Implementation –

refinement to

integrate

Sustainability Metrics

Which Metrics do WE want to push for? IGMS Letter replaced with Metrics Checklist Direct to Metrics Checklist Consider doing “__” Metrics (priority ones for RH) Advise applicant of additional Metrics think could achieve Outline additional Metrics that could be achieved

Confirm Metrics Score for

Recomm’n Report

Enter Final

Score into

Monitoring Tool

Implementation

-

use of

ite Plan Control and example condition

a) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the developer…..is to provide

the CBO with verification that the proposed home(s) have been enrolled in a NRC certified administrated program, such as ENERGY STAR®, R-2000, LEED…..in accordance with Schedule “_”.

b) Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Certificate of (any) Lot (or Block) on

the Plan, the Owner shall provide verification from a(n) ENERGY STAR®…….

c) The Owner shall indemnify and save harmless the Town….from any

action, loss or liability resulting….from the development….in relation to…..Clauses 8 (a) and (b) above.

Implementation –

other things to think about

 Revise Planning Forms/ Study Terms of References/

Website/Policies

 Training/Education of Staff, Private Sector Planners,

commenting agencies

 Update of Engineering Standards/Creation of Alternative

Engineering Standards

 Review of Metrics and continued coordination between

partner municipalities – monitor and update

 In Brampton, inter-departmental Sustainability Team established to assist in a staged Implementation Plan in 2014 and full roll-out 2015, including sustainability

threshold scores.

 For Vaughan, after 9-12 months of testing, amend Site Plan

Control By-Law, extend use of Site Plan Agreements, etc.

 Continued knowledge sharing about this project – possible

 Shared goal among partners

 MOU identifies key roles and minimum financial details  Frequent partner communications and sign-off (longer

schedule but better products in the end)

 Information sharing as part of the collaboration was

extremely useful in quickly addressing internal and external feedback

 Partnership boosts the credibility of the products

 Collaboration has been successful and there is interest in identifying other projects suitable for a collaborative approach.