POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

Date: July 4, 2001
Author/Local: Andrea Wickham/7088

Ian Smith/7846

RTS No. 02190

CC File No. 8206

P&E: August 2, 2001

TO:	Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM:	The Director of Current Planning in consultation with the Director of City Plans and the Manager of Real Estate Services
SUBJECT:	Establishing An Environmental Assessment Method for Buildings in Southeast False Creek

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT the budget, work program, and staffing to develop an environmental assessment method for buildings in Southeast False Creek, as summarized in Table 1, be approved; and

B. THAT $55,600 be allocated for this work, source of funds to be the contingency reserve.

C. THAT the Director of Current Planning be instructed to proceed with the work either as:

· part of the ongoing work program of Southeast False Creek, as outlined in the companion report entitled: "Southeast False Creek: Environmental Plans Required for the Preparation of the Official Development Plan",
OR
· independently under the supervision of senior staff in the Central Area Planning Division.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services recommends approval of A and B.

COUNCIL POLICY

The City of Vancouver has many policies which encourage energy efficiency and improved building performance.

With particular regard to Southeast False Creek, Council endorsed a range of strategies and plans to "significantly increase energy efficiency in SEFC buildings, infrastructure, transportation, and open space..." in adopting the "Southeast False Creek Policy Statement" in October 1999. More specifically, the Policy Statement suggested creating and implementing guidelines for green buildings.

PURPOSE

This report proposes a work program, time line, staff resources, and budget for a planning process to establish an environmental assessment method for buildings in Southeast False Creek (SEFC). It should be noted that the process proposed in this report can be considered the first part of a two part process - that is: first consider LEED^TM (the U.S. Green Building Council's assessment method: "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design") for SEFC and report back to Council. Then, in part two, assess LEED^TM for broader use across the city.

BACKGROUND

In adopting the Southeast False Creek Policy Statement, Council directed staff to explore and develop green building strategies for SEFC. For instance, the Policy Statement raised the issue of creating and implementing guidelines for green buildings, and also pondered the economic implications of green buildings. To further this goal, staff from the SEFC planning team met with staff from the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), the BC Buildings Corporation (BCBC), and the Province of BC's Green Buildings Program. As similar exploratory work was being done by all three levels of government, the strength of combining efforts and working collaboratively was recognized. A large group was formed (consisting of staff from several City of Vancouver departments and the above-noted agencies as well as many private industry and environmental/academic representatives) to explore ways of encouraging greener building practices in Vancouver and BC. This "green buildings" group met several times over the summer and fall of 2000.

After several discussions, it became clear that the members of the group favoured building assessment methods over green building guidelines as the preferred tool to encourage greener building practices. The rationale for this preference was that assessment methods are generally less complicated; are not overly prescriptive (thus allow room for interpretation);and do not involve long delays in development and implementation. In particular, the private industry representatives of the group noted that an environmental assessment method:
· could be simple and be implemented without delay;
· should be consistent across all three levels of government;
· should not add layers of bureaucratic process; and
· should not add significant up-front costs.

With this in mind, the green buildings group decided to look more closely at building environmental assessment methods.

What are "green buildings"?

Currently, buildings consume large amounts of resources (materials, water, energy), and generate significant volumes of solid waste, sewage and air emissions throughout their life-cycles. In the GVRD, demolition, land clearing and construction waste makes up approximately 30- 40% of the total waste stream, and an estimated 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the Lower Mainland come from buildings.

However, buildings can be constructed or retrofitted to greatly reduce impacts on the local environment and utility infrastructure. Sustainable design and construction can significantly reduce the environmental impacts of buildings, including emissions, air pollution, habitat loss, and urban sprawl. For example, green practices can reduce waste generation during construction by 75 percent, and energy use by up to 60 percent. Demands on drinking water, sewage treatment, energy supply, storm water, transportation, and waste disposal can also be reduced. Furthermore, sustainable design strategies translate into significant, long-term savings for building owners and operators.

What is a building environmental assessment method?

An assessment method is a way to evaluate the environmental performance of a building against an explicit set of criteria. In identifying a building's performance, an environmental assessment provides clear guidance on the environmental strengths or deficiencies of a building thereby informing an evolving design or remedial work.

Using a recognized assessment method allows for benchmarking and comparison. For example, different projects can be compared based on their success at meeting the established green building targets. At a larger scale, different cities or jurisdictions can be compared in terms of their abilities to meet greener building practices.

DISCUSSION

Out of the larger green buildings group, a Steering Committee took shape, consisting of representatives from the Province, the GVRD, and the City of Vancouver. The Steering Committee's mandate was to pool resources and focus on working together to understand the strengths and weaknesses of current assessment methods.

In order to begin making informed decisions about which assessment method might best meet its collective needs, the Steering Committee commissioned a study to evaluate the four most prominent assessment methods. Well-known green building expert Dr. Raymond Cole of the Environmental Research Group at UBC was hired as a consultant and delivered a comprehensive study entitled "A Building Environmental Assessment Method for British Columbia" in March 2001 (This document is summarized in Appendix B and available on file in the City Clerk's Office). Dr. Cole concluded that the U.S. Green Building Council's assessment method - LEED^TM - would be the most effective, widely applicable, yet customizable tool for use in our region. The selection of LEED^TM was supported by the Steering Committee because it best met the collective criteria established (see Appendix B).

What is LEED^TM ?

In essence, LEED^TM is a self-assessing system designed for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings. In the near future, LEED^TM will have the capability to rate all residential buildings, commercial interiors, and building operations and maintenance.

To perform a LEED^TM assessment, a building is evaluated on the following criteria: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality. Depending upon the level of performance, the building is either found to be uncertifiable or designated LEED^TM Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum. LEED^TM has been widely adopted in the US, including the Cities of Seattle and Portland and the State of California.

How much does meeting a LEED^TM target add to project costs? In Seattle, where their City Council has required all public projects to meet the LEED^TM Silver standard, planners estimate that this may add between 4-6% to each project budget. However, this is for institutional projects, not residential, and Seattle planners note that:

"There is no one answer; incremental costs will vary depending on when LEED^TM is applied in the design process (should be very early), the project type and size, and the green measures selected. Not all green building measures will cost more, and in most cases, substantial operations savings will be achieved."

Response to Study and Further Developments

The Steering Committee's study has been widely distributed and well-received by representatives from the Federal government, the Cities of Seattle and Portland, and private industry. Architect Peter Busby described this work as "cutting-edge" and has referred to it directly in his work with the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada's similar search for an assessment method at the national level. The City of Vancouver has positioned itself in a key leadership role regarding green building initiatives in Canada by actively participating in this process and in the funding of the consultant's study.

Phase two of this joint process is already underway. The Steering Committee partners - i.e. staff from the City of Vancouver, the GVRD, and the Province - have engaged Dr. Cole again as our consultant to develop a LEED^TM Application Guide for BC. An Application Guide is essentially a formal adaptation of LEED^TM to fit local regulatory and climatic contexts. Each partner will once again contribute 1/3 of the funds necessary to complete this study, thus the City benefits again from this partnership and from its cost-sharing aspects.

Work Program and Time Line

The next step for the City of Vancouver would involve Planning staff moving forward with a process to introduce and apply LEED^TM in SEFC. While this work is an important part of the SEFC commitment to sustainability, staff notice that this process is more than originally anticipated in the SEFC work program or budget. In fact, staff hope that the early answers gained from applying an assessment method on this site will help to provide clearer direction overall, thus adding to our ability to transfer this body of knowledge to other parts of the city.
Staff believe that it is possible to complete the process to adopt LEED^TM for buildings in SEFC in a six month period. This process would involve consulting with the public and industry stakeholders, and then applying LEED^TM and its BC Application Guide to public and private developments in the SEFC sustainable community, in anticipation of applying LEED^TM throughout the city. Staff would continue to work with both the GVRD and the Province throughout this process.

This work program would commence with a regional workshop in October 2001 (see draft agenda in Appendix C) to provide an opportunity to: i) raise awareness and generate interest in how green buildings can contribute to creating sustainable communities; ii) learn about current green building practices, and iii) create action plans to support the adoption of green building in Vancouver and the region.

Staff would next convene several stakeholders' meetings to discuss LEED^TM, the purpose of assessment methods, and general green building strategies with representatives of the following groups: the GVRD; the Province; architects; engineers; real estate developers; realtors; building owners and operators; and members of various sustainability groups. As well, City work is currently being undertaken on seismic mitigation with many of the participants listed above. Part of this process will be to coordinate these initiatives and begin to work together.

Further, staff believe that a research component should be included in the proposed process, so that it is possible to examine case studies of completed green buildings and gather comprehensive data and information. It will be important from the standpoint of both staff and the development industry to be able to refer to a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

Following a comprehensive stakeholder consultation process, staff would incorporate public input, and then, in the last phase of this project, report back to Council on the final version of the consultant's LEED^TM Application Guide for BC and recommendations regarding how LEED^TM can be applied to buildings in SEFC, as well as introduce a process to establish LEED^TM throughout Vancouver if appropriate.

Moving toward LEED^TM at this time represents a significant opportunity for Vancouver to continue the widely acknowledged leadership role in sustainable development already established with the adoption of the SEFC Policy Statement. The added benefit is the ability to share much of the process work and costs with the GVRD and the Province.

Staffing and Budget

While staff have been moving forward on green building strategies as part of their other work programs, this work has gained momentum at a very quick pace. To be able to maintain a key role in the Steering Committee and develop and lead the consultative process described, a dedicated staff effort is required beyond what has been possible with the existing staff resources of the SEFC team. As such, staff recommend creating a temporary Planner I position for six months, commencing October 2001.

Table 1 - Planning Process Budget

Staff: Planning	$34,000
Research	10,000
Public consultation and travel	10,000
Membership in U.S. Green Buildings Council (City of Van.)	1,600
TOTAL	$55,600

Staff recommend that funds for this process be sourced from the contingency reserve.

CONCLUSION

Moving forward with a process to adopt LEED^TM in SEFC and have all buildings in this sustainable community certified will continue to ensure Vancouver's place as a leader in developing and implementing green building strategies. It is the intention that the lessons learned from this project will be transferrable across the city, region, and province, thus contributing to a comprehensive multi-governmental green building approach.

This move toward a building assessment method is very timely, as throughout the world, momentum is building and demand is rising for greener building standards.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 1

Participants

Steering Committee

Martine Desbois Green Buildings BC - New Buildings Program
Peter Clark BCBC
Alex Zimmerman BCBC
Thomas Mueller GVRD, Policy and Planning Dept.
Michel De Spot GVRD, Air Quality Dept.
Ian Smith City of Vancouver, Central Area Planning
Alan Duncan City of Vancouver, Central Area Planning
Andrea Wickham City of Vancouver, Central Area Planning

Green Buildings Advisory Group

(Note: this is a list of industry representatives and other interested parties who have been involved to date -i.e. consulted for the study, and/or attended related meetings. Membership in this advisory group will be formalized in the near future)

Architects/Engineers
Peter Busby Busby + Associates Architects
Graham McGarva Baker McGarva Hart Architecture
Guy Taylor Baker McGarva Hart Architecture
Matthew Roddis Baker McGarva Hart Architecture
Ron Bain EcoDesign Resource Society
Don Nicolson Nicolson Tamaki Architects
Freda Pagani UBC Land and Building Services
Theresa Coady Bunting Coady Architects
Ian Theaker Integral Design
Kevin Hydes Keen Engineering
Curt Hepting EnerSys Analytics

Development Community
John Cordonier Bentall Corporation
Robert McCarthy Polygon Homes
Donal O'Callaghan Intrawest Corporation

Building Owners and Managers Association
Paul LaBranche
Elia Sterling

Others
Mehdi Jamal City of Vancouver, Energy Utilization, Building Dept.
Neil McCreedy City of Vancouver, Environmental Protection Branch
Linda Kwan City of Vancouver, Environmental Protection Branch
Jessica Woolliams BCBC
Robert Hicks GVRD, Policy and Planning Dept.
Jennie Moore GVRD, Regional Air and Energy Advisory

APPENDIX B
Page 1 of 5

Executive Summary
"A Building Environmental Assessment Method For British Columbia"
Dr. Raymond Cole

E1 LEED BC Steering Committee

E1.1 The LEED BC Steering Committee is composed of representatives from the primary Stakeholder agencies: City of Vancouver; Greater Vancouver Regional District; BC Buildings Corporation and Green Buildings BC Program.
E1.2 The intent of this report is to examine the characteristics of four building environmental assessment methods and their match with the specific requirements of the Stakeholder agencies. The goal is to recommend an assessment method best suited to the current and anticipated needs of the Stakeholder agencies.
E1.3 The consultation process involved meetings and interviews with:

· Stakeholder agencies: City of Vancouver; Greater Vancouver Regional District; BC Buildings Corporation and Green Buildings BC Program.
· Industry Representatives: Architectural and engineering professionals; Building Owners and Managers Association of BC, building developers.

E1.4 This initiative is the first step in an ongoing process, the goals and objectives of which will continue to be refined as and how experience is gained with building environmental assessment. The dialogue and collaboration between the Stakeholder agencies regarding the adoption and promotion of appropriate and effective methods will increase the environmental performance of buildings within their individual and collective jurisdictions.

E2 Building Environmental Assessment Methods

E2.1 A building environmental assessment method is a way to evaluate the environmental performance of a building against an explicit set of criteria.
E2.2 An environmental assessment of a building can:

· Identify success at meeting an expected level of performance in a number of declared environmental performance criteria.
· Provide clear guidance on the environmental strengths or deficiencies that can offer

feedback to an evolving design or provide guidance for future remedial work.

E2.3 Specific roles of building environmental assessment for government use include:

· Provide objective measurements of progress toward environmental goals, e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, water use etc.
· Provide a basis for municipal, regional, provincial and federal government

environmental development planning policy.

· Reduce the demands that buildings place on utility infrastructure, e.g., stormwater,

potable water, sewage treatment, electricity, natural gas, etc.

E3 Stakeholder Agency and Industry Interests

E3.1 Stakeholders and industry representatives generally consider:

· Environmental concerns to be gaining momentum.
· The strong interest and commitment to improving environmental performance of

buildings spans both private and public sector groups.

· The current context presents best context for considerable movement forward.
· The individual and collective aspirations for the adoption of some form of

APPENDIX B
Page 2 of 5

environmental assessment signals an important stage.

· The use of building environmental assessment methods/ratings system as a

necessary and complementary mechanism to encouraging widespread improvement
in environmental performance.

· The primary issue is market transformation.
· The selected method should be the one that would make change happen most

quickly.

· The adoption of a common method ensures all levels of government and private

sector are using same set of criteria.

· There is a need for one or more Champions/advocates in positions of authority to

publicly commit to its adoption.

E3.2 The Stakeholder agencies view building environmental assessment methods as an

important:
· Means of benchmarking performance.
· Complement to regulation.

E3.3 Architects identified the direct and indirect impacts that assessment methods may have on building design:

· Positive aspects include:

- A vehicle for discovering what is important and what is not important.
- An instrument of changing design practice by identifying a new standard of
performance.
- A means of encouraging architects and engineers to break old habits and design
norms.

· Negative aspects include:

- They may detract from more fundamental professional commitment to
environmental responsibility, i.e., ethics and professional responsibilities.
- Assessment methods may drive the product and process.
- Achieving a high score may prove more important than aspiring to a good overall
product.
- A danger of incorporating "bleeding edge technology" producing high rating, but
incurs high maintenance costs.

· Design professionals identify the importance of a North American system.

E3.4 Developers identified that:

· There are generational differences within the development industry and these further reinforce the acknowledged changing context.
· Despite reticence regarding costs, assessment methods are a positive mechanism.
· Environmental issues are currently "soft" but "real" marketing issues and solid

evidence of performance improvements resulting from incorporation of environmental strategies would be valuable.

· Weighting of criteria within an assessment method is particularly important.
· Weightings should be a clear reflection of priority, combining both what is important

from an environmental standpoint and what is achievable.

· Overall application of weightings should not create a blend that does not give clear

distinction in improved performance.

E3.5 Major differences were evident between design and construction of new buildings and

those involved with the management of existing facilities:
· Stakeholder groups, professionals and developers support the value of an

environmental assessment method as an objective means of benchmarking
performance and demonstrating that a building has indeed met a higher level of
performance.

· BOMA BC is opposed to an assessment process that leads to ranking of buildings

according to environmental performance and favour:
- Performance measures for a limited number of key environmental issues which

APPENDIX B
Page 3 of 5

have single pass/fail level of compliance.
- Advice and assistance should ideally be given to owners/managers of facilities not
meeting the requirements on how to upgrade accordingly.
- Tax incentives and rebates as the most effective financial mechanisms to stimulate
increased retrofit activity.
- Acknowledging buildings with excellent environmental performance within a separate awards program.

E3.6 The Stakeholder agencies recognise and require that any assessment method must:

· Be directed at the majority of buildings, including single family housing.
· Link with other provincial and federal government programs and initiatives, e.g.:

Green Buildings BC - New and Retrofit - Program, Commercial Building Incentive
Program, C2000 etc.

E3.7 The Stakeholder agencies and industry representatives reiterated that the most

important characteristic of any adopted system is that it is simple to create, simple to
maintain and simple to use.

E3.8 Furthermore, and closely related, if the Stakeholder agencies become actively involved

with an environmental assessment method they will be concerned about the costs of
development, costs of administration, assessment costs borne by users, and the cost
implications of addressing the outcome of an assessment.

E3.9 The Stakeholder agencies identify that it is important at this time to educate clients and

design teams on environmental issues, and assessment methods may serve an
important role in this process.

E4 Possible Methods

There are four possible methods:

· Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method - Canada

(BREEAM Canada)

· Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method - Green Leaf

(BREEAM/Green Leaf)

· Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
· Green Building Challenge Tool (GBTool)

E5 Recommended System

E5.1 The recommendation of an assessment method to the Stakeholder agencies was based

on:
1. Simplicity and practicality
2. Cost
3. The ability to offer comparisons and benchmarking
4. The ability to be customised while retaining universality
5. The organisational context within which the method operates
6. Its potential as a North American system

E5.2 Although a hybrid system, GBTool and BREEAM Canada have distinct strengths and

potential, they are not recommended:

· An independent hybrid system specifically for BC would involve considerable time and effort to create and maintain, and limit comparison and benchmarking of building performance, and credibility outside BC.
· The establishment of a delivery and maintenance infrastructure for GBTool would be a considerable undertaking and likely to be beyond the resources of the Stakeholders.

APPENDIX B
Page 4 of 5

· It would be the first such customisation of GBTool in North America and as such take the Stakeholder agencies into uncharted territory regarding its success and credibility.
· Despite notable interest in BREEAM Canada by several organisations and agencies, it appears to have little momentum and CSA has shown little leadership in promoting the method.

E5.3 Based on the arguments presented herein, the choice of possible systems was between

BREEAM Green Leaf and LEED.

E5.4 Based on the criteria listed in E5.1, LEED emerged as the one most appropriate to the

Stakeholder's needs and is the recommended method.

E5.5 The organisational context within which the method operates and its potential as a North

American system are particularly important. LEED was considered the method that:
· Was anticipated to find more widespread adoption in North America.
· The Stakeholder agencies could actively participate in its future development and

evolution.

· Enjoyed greater awareness, recognition and use by the private sector and design

professionals.

E6 Customisation of LEED for BC

E6.1 The core criteria within the LEEDTM Green Building Rating System must be retained.
E6.2 Four general types of modifications to the LEEDTM are acceptable:

· Stipulation that some existing LEEDTM credits are deemed mandatory by the

Application Guide.

· The creation of new mandatory credits within the maximum of four points allowed

under the Innovation Credits.

· Supplemental prerequisites not addressed by existing LEEDTM prerequisites and

credits.

· Modifications to existing LEEDTM prerequisites and credits.

E6.3 The seeming constraints of E6.1 and E6.2 may be more of an advantage than limitation:

· The core criteria within LEED are quite generic and universal.
· The common core could be viewed as applicable to all Stakeholders.
· Using addenda to relate to BC context, these could be further customised to account for organisational differences and requirements.

E6.4 The adaptation of point scores to reflect BC environmental priorities may emerge as an

issue in adapting LEED for BC use:
· This would require participation in LEED policy decision-making.
· Since this is by consensus of USGBC members, it is currently unknown as to whether this is possible, although there is an air of receptivity to suggestions that enable greater regional applicability.

E7 Implications for Stakeholder Agencies

E7.1 Depending on the extent of the required adaptations, negotiations will be necessary with

US Green Building Council.

E7.2 Back-up and internal support for the adopted system is critical. Most significantly in the

form of dedicated staff members and research / development funding.

E7.3 Phasing in of assessors, ensuring that every architect, engineer and other appropriately

qualified professional has the opportunity to qualify as an assessor as part of a planned
strategy to distribute the skill base.

E7.4 Other possible requirements to ensure the successful adoption of LEED in BC include

APPENDIX B
Page 5 of 5

the creation of regional web-based tools and information exchange systems to promote
building environmental assessments.

E8 Justification for Adoption of Assessment Method

E8.1 The adoption of LEED within the respective Stakeholder organisations can:

· Demonstrate coordinated leadership.
· Provide objective measurements of progress toward environmental goals, e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, water use etc.
· Reduce the demands that buildings place on utility infrastructure.

E8.2 LEED is rapidly emerging as a widely referenced building environmental assessment

method and is positioned to be the accepted system in the United States:
· The application of building environmental assessment methods is being used in both the private and public sector. Given the mounting interest and concern for

environmental issues, this momentum will increase.

· The City of Seattle has adopted LEED and other North American cities and states

(e.g., California) are exploring its possible application.

E9 Conclusions

E9.1 All four systems have distinct strengths and potential.
E9.2 LEED is recommended for adoption by the Stakeholder agencies.
E9.3 LEED has distinct advantages using the six criteria: simplicity and practicality, cost, the

ability to offer comparisons and benchmarking, the ability to be customised while
retaining universality, the organisational context within which the method operates, and
its potential as a North American system.

E9.4 LEED is seen as offering the greater potential North American presence, enjoying the

greater awareness by design professionals, and offering opportunities for the
Stakeholder agencies to participate in shaping its future.

E9.5 The development of building environmental systems in North America is currently in a

rapid state of evolution:
· One can expect varying degrees of linking and harmonising of systems within the next five years.
· It is difficult to speculate on what form this or other alliances may take, but one can

comfortably conclude that LEED will be a central component.

E9.6 Given the rapid changes that are occurring in this field, many issues are, and can only,

be speculative - even for some of the seemingly qualitative criteria. It is difficult to
anticipate what the content, emphasis, cost of any assessment method etc. might be in
two or so years time - they are simply both too new to make these judgements with any
confidence. That stated, it is clearly dangerous to select a system based solely on their
current success or limitations.

APPENDIX C
Page 1 of 2

Draft Program
Regional Workshop: "Green Buildings and Sustainable Communities"

October 3, 2001
Fairmont Waterfront Hotel
8:30 a.m.- 5:30 p.m.

Agenda

8:30 - 9:00	Registration
9:00 - 9:05	Opening/Welcome
9:05 - 10:30	Plenary Session
	Moderator: How do Green Buildings Contribute to Sustainable Communities? Tim Beatley, University of Virginia, Dept. of Urban & Environmental Planning; The LEED System: A Framework for Green Building in B.C. Ray Cole, UBC, School of Architecture; Discussion
10:30 - 10:45	Coffee Break
10:45 - 12:30	Concurrent Sessions
Session 1:	Green Building Design & Construction Chair: Speakers: Peter Busby, Busby & Associates Architects - innovative green building design; Kevin Hydes, Keen Engineering - engineering considerations in building design; Lucia Athens & Tony Gale, City of Seattle - experience with green building/LEED;
Session 2:	Green Building Retrofit Chair: Speakers: Robert Greenwald, Prism Engineering - Case studies: BCBC green retrofit program; Phil Hogg, City of Richmond - examples of municipal green retrofits;
Session 3	Sustainable Communities Chair: Speakers: Jeffrey Kenworthy, UBC -- alternative transportation choices & city form; Freda Pagani, UBC -- sustainable community development;
Session 4	Green Infrastructure Chair : Speakers: Sebastian Moffat, Sheltair Group - green infrastructure opportunities & barriers; Louise Comeau, FCM -- Green Infrastructure Program;
12:30 - 1:30	Lunch

APPENDIX C
Page 2 of 2

1:30 - 3:30	Concurrent Workshop Sessions cont'd
Session 1:	Green Building Design & Construction Chair: Speakers: Martine Desbois, BCBC & Larry McFarland Architect, Green Buildings BC program, case study buildings; Scott Johnson, CH2M Hill -- Economic Case for "High Performance" Buildings;
Session 2:	Green Building Retrofit Chair: Speakers: Glenn Bridges, G.E. Bridges Assoc - life cycle costing, capital & operating budgets; Pat Balfour, Telus Real Estate Group -- W. Farrell building: comprehensive retrofit; Bruce MacKenzie, Bentall, Calgary - case study: incremental retrofit;
Session 3	Sustainable Community Initiatives in Greater Vancouver Chair: Speakers: Ian Smith, South East False Creek -- sustainable development guidelines; Michael Geller, Burnaby Mountain Community - development obstacles/incentives; Murray Dinwoodie, Surrey & Patrick Condon, UBC - Surrey Headwaters project;
Session 4	Green Infrastructure Chair : Speakers: Cornelia Oberlander - building design, greywater systems, green roofs, landscaping; Sandra Marshall & Doug Pollard, CMHC -- wastewater technologies & systems; Stephen Rees, BC Energy Aware Committee -- community energy planning;
3:30 - 4:00	Working Session Summary & Next Steps
4:00 - 4:15	Closing Remarks
4:15 - 5:30	Reception AIBC Sustainability Exhibit & Displays

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver