That Council adopt Policy Number COU -229 – Sustainable Building Policy.
To provide Council with the opportunity to adopt a new Sustainable Building Policy.
That Council adopt Policy Number COU-229 – Sustainable Building Policy.
your worship. I don't think I'll be supporting this. I appreciate the work that's gone into it, but I actually kind of think it hits an uncomfortable middle spot for me in that. It isn't prescriptive with gold. But also, I think ads process. And I hear the comment, it wasn't intended to, but I look at that as more process, more expense, more councillor check ins. Where? I think a more simplified approach. And. There would potentially be some gaps that just would need to be worked through, would be the same. Standard in which. We hold everybody to and is inspired by the city plan, goals and. Uses the legislative tools. The development permit areas, the building code, and I think that would be a far easier and quicker process. With the necessary modifications made in the policy for some of our buildings, and I would just say yeah, there's a lot of principles in there and guidelines, and I appreciate that, but when I'm being perfectly honest. My expectation was any one of our planners or project managers on these projects would know of those and have the ability to come forward to Councillor and say this. Is approach. For one of. The lot of work has gone into it for me, it just sort of misses the mark and. I won't be supporting it. Thank you. worship. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the existing lead policy. And I also think if you probably look at the numbers, We haven't really built that many things, and it comes for exemptions, so I think that's kind of an unfair comparison. I think just the appropriate ways to analyze this on its own. And I would love to be wrong if this is adopted, that this process is outlined will not result in more expensive buildings
and Thorpe. Got two questions for you. Thank you. So what I'm hearing from you, basically, it's like something I've been asking for for a long time is that you would actually be doing a cost benefit analysis report. So then it would be up to this Councillor whatever Councillor of the day to say yes, we agree with the sustainable policy or we don't because. I've done some research on some of this and spoken to different planners and developers and some say going to these sustainable practices can cost anywhere between 20% to 30% more on a project which, if you take a look at a project like the public works, could be $20. Million. So that would be a decision that would come back to this table to CoC be prepared to spend that extra $20 million. And if. So will there be justification so that we can show to the public this is why we did
it because of ABC and D. Through your worship. To Councillor Amestrong, costing associated with sustainable building practices is definitely something that's speculated on on a regular basis, but it's really hard to actually quantify. Unless you've done the costing exercise and completed the design in both directions. So the intent with the revised policy would be to have that lifecycle consideration. And it would see that benefit. Pulled across the overall lifecycle of the facility, so. I understand the increased capital cost. But that capital cost. Reasonably to offset operational costs associated with facilities. And I've heard similar numbers, 20% to 30%. We did not see those kind of numbers when we removed the certification piece. From lead. That was part of the Councillor record. And there's a lot of speculation. But no real finite. Number on what the cost might be because it is so dependent on what you're talking about. If you're saying the building is going to have six inches of exterior insulation or it's going to have eight inches. That's going to be a relatively low cost. Measure because you're already putting insulation on. You're just putting a little bit extra. In thickness versus something that might be. You weren't doing a geothermal heat exchange, but now you're adding a whole. New system to the building. So it really depends on the project and. I
would be really hesitant to associate a specific percentage. So just the big thing for me is that we would be getting this information so we could. Make an informed
Thorpe. Thanks for the report. And policy. I guess. A few comments with questions here. I guess going to this policy like I've been here in the past and asked to waive. The lead standard because of certain costs, and that's fine. But. This is all sort of like, I guess, not aspirational. There's things that we have to do to go through, but there's no requirements. And there was one building, for example, here, where we did waive the lead, but we were assured, like it's going to be sustainable right in the middle of greenhouse gas. And. A giant. Natural gas cooking stove was put in. And a little frustrating, but because there was just no standard and set, it's up to the design team to make those decisions. And it becomes so complex and difficult for a Councillor to wade through, and so. I guess. There's not really a lot of teeth in the policy other than. There's just not as much standardization. And I guess for me, there's two things. That I really care about. In the sense of a standard being met is that we have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. And that we're striking to have we passed the zero carbon step code for new builds. Are we trying to achieve that standard in every building that we're putting in there's? Going to be some cases for particular applications where, of course, we might need natural gas or something in there. But that's the standard, is that we're going to try to have it be net zero and utilize electric systems. I would like to see a standard like that. And I guess the other. Two is just the building materials used. At the end of this building lifecycle, is it built in a way that is just going to be a giant thing of garbage that we're going to gather up and bring it. Over to the landfill? Or is it constructing a way that it is possible to be deconstructed and the materials, there is some thought into it of, like, What's the end of life for this? And I think all those things are spoken to. In the policy. But I guess I'm just not sure. How tightly adhered to are they and what would be the expection from the expectation of counsel in terms of adherence to those
type of things. A three year worship to Councillor Guester Brock. Very good points. You're right. There is no set minimums, but the guidance document speaks to what leadership would look like in those areas. One thing that was tried to balance was the cost implication of some of these larger initiatives. Zero. Carbon stepcode is definitely. One consideration of embodied carbon and lifecycle carbon analysis is another one. Recognizing that. If there's a line in the sand drawn on a specific item. We may, as an organization, be backed into a corner on overall development. And so the intent was. Throughout the evolution of a project. Staff come to Councillor on a regular basis. Consider how many times you've seen people discussing. The public works yard update. There are a number of check ins that the project team would be providing to Councillor that there would be an organic opportunity for Councillor to provide direction as to the leadership level shown in any of. These scenarios, and then there would be a specific project identified that the project team could then go back and regroup on the specific ask. For example, If it was. We want this new building to be zero carbon. Then the project team could come back to Councillor and say, based on your requirement, The cost associated with that is this particular number. Trying to bake that into a policy that. Is really wide reaching, is extremely difficult. And as I said, the intent was to make sure that. We're not pigeonholing our facilities into certain types. Sorry. Certain sustainable initiatives. So that we can continue. To broadly address sustainability within the portfolio. Anything that we're doing in one facility. Using carbon as an example. The first ton of carbon is the easiest. The last ton of carbon is the most expensive, so to. Chase. Zero carbon in a single building. We actually can do a lot more for our carbon footprint if we take that investment and take. The top five tons off of every facility. So there's an opportunity when it's a new build and it's a really important question to ask. But it really needs to come down. To or the intent here is that it comes down to the project team coming to Councillor for. A very specific project and then getting that instruction based on where Councillor is comfortable with the budget. And the intended use of the facility.
Okay. Thank you. I definitely understand. The approach, and I guess. On some of these metrics that we know or some of these veins that we know are really important. There's a part of me that feels more comfortable if just a standard is set and then the example when we say we're not going to do the Led when we get to that point of the design to be like, you know what? It doesn't make sense. In the specific circumstance to do it this way, and we should look at that to repeal it. Rather than. Sort of go in the other direction where you like. Oh. Where are we going to take leadership? Because I think. It almost sets the standard and bar low. And then you're working from there. And, yeah. One. I need to think through a little bit more, but I am a little bit uncomfortable with sort of this approach. Thank you. Thank
cost and that's hard to determine, depending on the project. Has there been. Any consultation or feedback from local builders or the building association, they had a chance to see
this. Or consider it. Thank you for the question through your worship. There was no consultation. This is intended to be corporately. Owned and operated facilities. So the organization is the one who is making the cost considerations and it would be direction given through the design team to the contractor who's building. So it's the same as whether when you're building a house, do you choose? A laminate countertop or granite countertop. You're the one in your own home to determine if there's value there, so. In this instance, the city is the one owning and operating and through the project team and consultation with Councillor and the direction received, then those value items would be pursued for the
You. Thank you. Before I call for the vote, and maybe to give Councillor some comfort, Mr. Sims, what was the example you used today? I believe it was carpet or something that would get you an extra point. For
A lead standard. Thanks. I think Ms. McCaskill talked a little bit about the proximity to transit as an example. So lead is a series of points that you chase, essentially. And the intent is very good, but familiar with another municipality that put a carpet a low Voc. Carpet in a boardroom so they could get a point for installing low boc carpet. In a boardroom that they would have normally just left as polished concrete. That's kind of the example that we're trying to avoid. As Ms. McCoskill mentioned, it's fit for purpose. I think city plan provides. All staff. And this isn't intended to be. Across the organization. Sets the standard for improving our sustainability. But in consideration with prosperity, in consideration with accessibility and inclusion. And if we try to build a pool with zero carbon heating. Will not be able to afford it. As just a random example. And I think that's the intent of this. The project. Team. It helps focus the project team on the goals within city plan, recognizing that. Sort of the overarching. Is around green and sustainable initiatives. But may not be able to be achieved in all. Elements of