Sustainability Performance Metrics

1. Sustainability Performance Metrics Measuring Sustainability Performance of New Development in Brampton, Richmond Hill and Vaughan Upwind Downwind 2014 Conference February 24, 2014 Implementing the

2. Outline of presentation • Project goals and context • Project phases and deliverables • Lessons learned from collaboration and early implementation issues

3. The project Brampton, Richmond Hill and Vaughan – Performance Metrics • Provide municipal staff with tools to guide and quantify the sustainability performance of new developments • Build on existing protocols for review of development applications • 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. Measuring the Sustainability Performance of New Development 3

4. Context • 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 in December 2013 to mark project completion

5. 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

6. Phase 2 - Sustainability Performance Metrics • 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”. • 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 in the Toronto Green Standard) • Static Tool similar to a traditional checklist • Dynamic Tool based in Excel

7. Static Tool

8. Dynamic Tool • 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

9. Dynamic Tool : Example Question 400m

10. Lessons from collaboration • 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.

11. Implementation Issues • Vaughan easing into implementation by first initiating a testing stage • Six additional staff meetings in June 2013 with a focus on implementation issues prior to Council adoption • No budget implications for testing stage • Will need to use the testing stage to identify amendments to the Site Plan Control By-Law, Site Plan Agreement template and Subdivision Agreement template to more fully implement the Sustainability Metrics • Will need to use the testing stage to identify sustainability thresholds to approve an application (although also through ongoing consultation with Richmond Hill and Brampton)

12. Thank you!