Metro Vancouver Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings

www.metrovancouver.org

Municipal LEED BuildingsMetro Vancouver Design Guide for

www.metrovancouver.org/buildsmart

© Copyright 2006 Greater Vancouver Regional District

Created for Metro Vancouver by Busby Perkins+Will and Stantec Consulting

DisclaimerCopyright to this publication is owned by the Greater Vancouver Regional District (“Metro Vancouver”). Permission is granted to produce or reproduce this publication, or any substantial part of it, for personal, non-commercial, educational and informational purposes only, provided that the publication is not modified or altered and provided that this copyright notice and disclaimer is included in any such production or reproduction. Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act, as amended or replaced from time to time.

While the information in this publication is believed to be accurate, this publication and all of the information contained in it are provided “as is” without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied. All implied warranties, including, without limitation, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are expressly disclaimed by Metro Vancouver, Ledcor Construction Limited, Buildgreen Developments, and Keen Engineering Co. Ltd.

The material provided in this publication is intended for educational and informational purposes only. This publication is not intended to endorse or recommend any particular product, material or service provider nor is it intended as a substitute for engineering, legal or other professional advice. Such advice should be sought from qualified professionals.

BuildSmart is the Lower Mainland’s resource for sustainable design and construction information. Developed by Metro Vancouver, this innovative program encourages the use of green building strategies and technologies; supports green building efforts by offering tools and technical resources; and educates the building industry on sustainable design and building practices.

GVRD Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings �

table of contents

�.0 INTRODUCTION �

2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE LEED® GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEM 5

3.0 MUNICIPAL CONSIDERATIONS 9

4.0 WATER USE AND CONSERVATION �5

5.0 ENERGY 27

6.0 MATERIALS AND RESOURCES 43

7.0 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 57

8.0 TRANSPORTATION CHOICES 7�

9.0 INNOVATION AND DESIGN 77

�0.0 APPENDICES

a. LEED®-Canada �.0 Score Card

b. Frequently Achieved LEED Credits for Municipal Projects

c. City of Vancouver’s Green Building Strategy: Summary of LEED Credits

d. Capital Regional District Cost Summary of Potential Rainwater Systems

e. Technology Fact Sheets:

I. Demand control ventilation

iI. Geo-exchange heating and cooling systems

iii. Waterless urinals

iv. Domestic solar hot water

v. Daylighting

2

GVRD Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings �

1.0 IntRoDUctIon

This resource is designed to assist municipalities to effectively construct and

develop high performance and LEED® certified buildings.

In 2002, the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Green Building Program

developed the LEED Implementation Guide for Municipal Green Buildings. This

guide has been successful in helping municipalities, consultants, and public sec-

tor building owners understand green building concepts and the LEED rating

system as it applies to new municipal facilities.

The GVRD Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings is more of a “how-to

guide” and Technology Series that places a greater emphasis on practical solu-

tions that will help municipalities in the GVRD achieve higher levels of perform-

ance and LEED certification. This Design Guide builds upon the previous guide

by providing:

• Up-to-date information on LEED in Canada;

• Municipally-based solutions to meet LEED credits;

• Guidelines on the ease of implementation, capital cost, and life-cycle cost;

• Operational feedback from built case studies;

• Practical solutions to meeting LEED credits;

• Barriers and issues of design solutions;

• Relevant resources; and

• The responsibilities of professionals.

In conjunction with this Guide, a series of Technology Fact Sheets has been

developed to provide municipalities with detailed information on specific sus-

tainable technologies. These fact sheets are intended to promote market-ready,

sustainable technologies that are applicable throughout the Greater Vancouver

Region. The technologies include:

• Geo-exchange heating and cooling systems

• Waterless urinals

• Domestic solar hot water

• Daylighting

• Demand control ventilation

These fact sheets can also be used as stand-alone documents.

GVRD Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings2

1.1 sUmmaRy of DesIgn solUtIons anD measURes

Each section presents a number of design solutions with guidelines on the ease

of implementation, capital cost, and life cycle cost. A complete summary of the

design solutions and information related to ease of implementation, capital cost,

and life cycle cost is provided below.

Definitions of ease of Implementation

Easy: Off the shelf, readily available product or technology

Low–no risk

Many precedents of application in potential other geographic

areas, building types, or industries

Low–no user and maintenance training issues

Moderate: Low-moderate risk

Some training or user modification required

Changed or increased maintenance requirements

Some precedents of application in potential other geographic


Difficult: Medium-high perception of risk

Use and maintenance training required

Few or no precedents of application in potential other geographic


Definitions of capital cost

Capital Cost: Net project impact rather than individual strategy or product cost

Cost neutral: +/- 2% of conventional project

Moderate cost increase: 2% - 20%

High cost increase: 20% +

Cost savings: Overall cost savings

Definitions of life-cycle cost

Immediate Payback: 0 - 5 year payback

Moderate Payback: 5 - �0 year payback

Long Payback: �0 years +

GVRD Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings 3

summary table of Design solutions

ease of

Implementation

applicable

leeD credit(s)capital cost Increase Payback

Water conservation strategies

Rainwater reuse Moderate WE c�Moderate Immediate

Greywater reuse Moderate to Difficult WE c2, c3Moderate Moderate

On-site sewage treatment Difficult WE c2High Long

Ultra-low flush / dual flush

toilets

Easy WE c3None Immediate

Low flow faucets and

showerheads


Waterless urinals Easy WE c3None Immediate

Automatic sensor controls on

faucets


Water use metering Moderate WE c3Moderate Long

energy conservation strategies

Building envelope Moderate EA p2, c�None to Moderate Immediate to

Moderate

Heating Easy to Moderate EA p2, c�None to Moderate Immediate

Cooling Moderate EA p2, c�None to Moderate Moderate

Lighting Easy EA p2, c�None to Moderate Immediate

Domestic hot water Easy EA p2, c�None Immediate

Ventilation Moderate EA p2, c�None to Moderate Immediate

District systems Difficult EA p2, c�Moderate Immediate to

Moderate


SS c4

energy conservation cont.

On-site generation Difficult EA p2, c�Moderate Immediate to Long

material strategies

Storage and collection of

recyclables

Easy MR p�None N/A

Building reuse Difficult MR c�Savings N/A

Construction waste

management

Moderate MR c2None Immediate

Resource reuse Moderate MR c3None to Moderate N/A

Recycled content Easy MR c4None N/A

Local / Regional materials Easy MR c5None N/A

Rapidly renewable materials Moderate MR c6None N/A

Certified wood Moderate MR c7Moderate N/A

Durable building Difficult MR c8None N/A

Indoor environmental strategies

Construction IAQ Easy EQ c3None Immediate

Thermal comfort Moderate EQ c7None Immediate

Adhesives and sealants Easy EQ c4.�None N/A

Paints and coatings Easy EQ c4.2None N/A

Carpet Easy EQ c4.3None N/A

Composite wood products Moderate EQ c4.4Moderate N/A

Light quality and views Moderate EQ c8None to Moderate Immediate

Innovative strategies

Green operations

(Housekeeping plan)

Moderate

ID c2

Moderate Immediate

Green education plan Moderate

ID c2

Moderate Immediate

Transportation choices Easy to DifficultSavings to Moderate Immediate

transportation choices

ease of

Implementation

applicable

leeD credit(s)capital cost Increase Payback


2.0 oVeRVIeW of tHe leeD® gReen bUIlDIng RatIng system

Since the inception in �998 of the LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmen-

tal Design) Green Building Rating System by the U.S. Green Building Council (US-

GBC), the Council is continuously in the process of updating the Rating System

and developing new application guides for different building types. The follow-

ing LEED Rating Systems are currently available in the U.S. marketplace:

• LEED-New Construction 2.2

• LEED-Existing Buildings

• LEED-Commerical Interiors

• LEED-Core and Shell

2.1 leeD In canaDa

Initially, LEED was solely based on accepted U.S. energy and environmental

standards to evaluate the environmental performance of a building over the

building’s life cycle. In 2003, the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) was

formed to represent the rapidly emerging Canadian green building industry. The

CaGBC launched its newly adapted LEED guidelines, LEED-Canada for New Con-

struction version �.0 (LEED Canada-NC) in December 2004, under license from

the USGBC. These guidelines reflect Canadian standards, guidelines and regula-

tions, and closely parallel the USGBC’s LEED-NC Rating System.

All Canadian LEED projects are now being registered and certified exclusively

under the CaGBC. There are some significant changes in LEED Canada-NC that

projects should be aware of when pursuing LEED certification. Under LEED

Canada-NC there are now a possible 70 points rather than 69 points a project can

achieve; further information on these changes can be obtained from the CaGBC.

Appendix A provides a LEED Canada scorecard.

2.2 leeD canaDa maRket DeVeloPments

The Canada Green Building Council is also developing rating system products in

Canada to respond to various market needs. To date, the CaGBC has developed a

supplementary Application Guide for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings and LEED

for Commercial Interiors. The CaGBC is in the process of developing an Applica-

tion Guide for Campus and Multiple Building projects which will be available for

use in Canada by Fall 2006.


2.3 mUnIcIPalItIes anD leeD

Municipalities across Canada are leading the market in having new projects

certified under the LEED Canada-NC system. The majority of the LEED certified

projects in Canada are municipal projects; see the list below for examples of

these projects.

Project

Country Hills Multi-Services Centre

location

Calgary, AB

level of

certification

Silver

Emergency Medical Services

Headquarters and Fleet Centre

Nose Creek Recreation and Library

Facility

Surrey Transfer Station

Canmore Civic Centre

St. John Ambulance Headquarters

Crowfoot Library

Spring Creek Firehall

Alberta Urban Municipalities

Association Building Expansion

White Rock Operations Building

City of Vancouver National Works

Yard

Semiahmoo Library and RCMP

District Office

Surrey, BC Silver

Vancouver, BC Gold

White Rock, BC Gold

Edmonton, AB Certified

Whistler, BC Silver

Calgary, AB Certified

Edmonton, AB Silver

Canmore, AB Silver

Greater Vancouver

Regional District, BC

Silver

Calgary, AB Gold

Region of

Waterloo, ON

Gold

See Appendix B Frequently Achieved LEED Credits for Municipal Projects for a

LEED Scorecard that shows which credits are frequently achieved by �0 of the

above �2 certified municipal projects across Canada.

The LEED rating system provides municipalities with an opportunity to bench-

mark building performance and demonstrate sustainability leadership. As well,


municipalities can move to adopt the LEED system as a standard, or guideline,

for green building design in their community.

For a more detailed introduction to the LEED system, the Canada and U.S. Green

Building Council along with the LEED Implementation Guide for Municipal

Green Buildings provide a comprehensive introduction to the rating system.

2.4 ResoURces

Canada Green Building Council: www.cagbc.org

US Green Building Council: www.usgbc.org

GVRD BuildSmart Program: www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/

(includes GVRD LEED Implementation Guide

for Municipal Green Buildings)



3.0 mUnIcIPal consIDeRatIons

3.1 tHe gVRD anD gReen bUIlDIngs

The GVRD has been very active in promoting green buildings over the past 6

years as a key component in meeting its demand side management strategy.

One of the GVRD’s primary initiatives in this area has been the BuildSmart pro-

gram� that was launched in January 2003. This program is a valuable resource for

the design and construction industry, helping designers to make informed deci-

sions about sustainable materials, design and construction choices. The program

encourages the use of green building strategies and technologies; supports

green building efforts by offering tools and technical resources; and educates

the building industry on sustainable design and building practices.

The BuildSmart program contributes to the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI),

advancing sustainable development in the Greater Vancouver area. The GVRD’s

Sustainable Region Initiative is a framework and action plan for present and fu-

ture Greater Vancouver based on the sustainability principles of economic pros-

perity, community well-being and environmental integrity. It has been adopted

as a management philosophy that will determine how plans and strategies for

tomorrow are developed, evaluated and implemented today.

Local industry knowledge of this subject area is very high. As of November 2006,

the GVRD probably has the highest concentration of green buildings in Canada,

with over 54 LEED registered projects and �5 LEED certified projects.

3.2 ImPact of cIty of VancoUVeR PolIcy on otHeR

JURIsDIctIons

Among the GVRD’s 2� member municipalities, the City of Vancouver is the most

progressive in the area of green building policies. Vancouver alone has 4 certi-

fied and �9 registered LEED projects and the City’s policies cover both municipal

and private sector buildings.

On July 8, 2004 the Vancouver City Council adopted a Green Building Strategy,

setting high environmental standards for the construction of new civic buildings

and special development projects such as Southeast False Creek. This strategy

supported the use of the LEED Green Building Rating System. At that time City

Council mandated:

2. www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/

In Canada, GHG emissions from buildings are projected to increase by �6% over �990 levels by 20�0 (under a business as usual scenario). This increase will account for 60.7 megatonnes of GHG emissions per year (Pembina Institute, 2003). Buildings in the Lower Mainland contribute the second largest quantity (28%) of GHG emissions in the region; only transportation contributes more (BuildSmart 2006).

GVRD Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings�0

• LEED Gold with a 30% improvement in energy performance for all civic

buildings;

• LEED Silver for all buildings in Southeast False Creek (SEFC); and

• LEED Gold for the Olympic Athlete’s Village in SEFC (as of March �, 2005),

with an additional directive to ensure that at least one project is built to a

LEED Platinum standard.

On November 3, 2005 the City of Vancouver Council approved a proposal

that will allow the City of Vancouver to pursue mandatory regulated building

strategies for all buildings regulated under Part Three of the Vancouver Build-

ing By-Law (e.g., generally buildings four stories and above). Experienced City

staff will develop a formal building code and bylaw (including new code/bylaws,

changes, refinements, and modifications) to ensure a new baseline for all non-

combustible, 4-storey or greater, commercial, residential, mixed-use, industrial,

and office buildings. These building types represent 80% of the total square

footage built in Vancouver.

The City has recognized that many of the LEED credits are already aspects of

development which the City currently regulates. Most buildings in Vancouver,

depending on their location, would achieve about eleven LEED points simply

based on their urban location, and by adhering to other existing City regula-

tions. City staff estimate that revisions to a few key by-laws – some of which are

already slated for update – would add an additional sixteen points, resulting in a

base LEED Certified level.

Beyond these credits, the City estimates that there are an additional 6 LEED

credits that are easily achievable because they are low cost and readily market-

able (e.g., use of local or regional materials, low-emitting materials, and paints).

These additional points would bring most buildings to a LEED Silver level; see

Appendix C for the City of Vancouver’s Green Building Strategy and summary

of applicable LEED credits. It must be noted that changes to these by-laws are

subject to cost analysis and consultation.

Once the baseline for green building is built into City’s regulations, compliance

will be obtained through the normal permitting, inspection, and enforcement

system. It is also important to note that under this approach, buildings are not

LEED-certified; but building owners will be well-positioned to apply for formal

LEED certification through the Canada Green Building Council.

GVRD Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings ��

This is the first comprehensive municipal approach committed to the develop-

ment of green buildings in Canada. The City of Vancouver has committed to3:

�. develop a regulatory tool for green building development through modifi-

cation, change, and development of key bylaws and codes, thereby raising

the baseline of development in Vancouver and meeting key city environ-

mental policy;

2. ensure a clear correlation with LEED to ensure that a regulatory stream sup-

ports and encourages the LEED framework for voluntary certification;

3. complete a cost benefit analysis of all mandatory measures and by-laws and

code changes;

4. ensure an ongoing liaison with stakeholders;

5. ensure a full assessment of supply and demand and trades and training

capacity to support the new baseline;

6. develop a training program for staff and key stakeholder groups to facilitate

the transition to the new baseline; and

7. create an approach that can be phased in to incrementally increase and

enhance the baseline of performance over time.

It is important to add that the green building baseline achieved through by-law

amendments reflects the City of Vancouver’s environmental priority areas, which

include energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction, and water management.

The City of Vancouver is also working with the GVRD in exploring opportunities

for “greening” the low-rise residential building sector in Greater Vancouver, and

collaborating with leading home builders, BC Hydro, Canadian Home Builders’

Association, and the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC).

With these policies, the City of Vancouver is becoming a model for other cities

across North America. In addition, the City of Vancouver’s by-law review under

its Green Building Strategy will provide a benchmark and direction for other mu-

nicipalities wanting to amend code and regulatory barriers to green buildings in

their communities.

3. City of Vancouver. 2005. Vancouver Green Building Strategy. October �7, 2005.


3.3 otHeR local mUnIcIPal gReen bUIlDIng InItIatIVes

A number of other GVRD municipalities have to some extent endorsed sustain-

ability and green building principles through various policy and program initia-

tives. These include:

• Official green building policies with or without minimum performance

targets for municipal buildings (usually expressed in terms of LEED certifi-

cation levels). An example of this is the 2005 City of Richmond Sustainable

High Performance Building Policy that sets LEED Gold rating as the desired

standard of building performance for new City buildings larger than 3,000

sq.m.

• Requirements for a minimum level of green building performance (usually

expressed in terms of levels of LEED certification) for developments on land

previously owned by the City as a condition of sale of the land. For example,

the Council of the City of North Vancouver mandated that the new public

library meet LEED Silver certification. To help fund this new facility, the City

plans to sell surplus lands for the development of two residential towers

and intends to ensure that the LEED system is applied to new construction

within that development.

• Endorsement of green building principles for the private sector and support

to developers willing to pursue green buildings. This is the case of the City

of White Rock, for which the Official Community Plan (OCP) states that the

City supports “green building” initiatives that incorporate environmentally

advanced design and energy systems and that the building applicants are

encouraged to design and construct buildings that incorporate measures

that will improve energy efficiency and reduce their environmental impact.

The City provides information to proponents on environmentally advanced

building techniques, and offers additional advice and guidance through the

review of projects by the Advisory Design Panel.

• Implementation of water metering programs. For example, the Cities of

Richmond, Delta, Surrey, White Rock and West Vancouver have, or plan to

implement a universal metering program. Others require metering only in

new construction, have a voluntary metering system, or nor program at all. 4

4. GVRD Draft Water Conservation Plan 2005 in Support of the GVRD Seymour – Capilano Filtration Project.

GVRD Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings �3

A host of other policies are in place in various municipalities that contribute to

green building development by promoting specific areas of sustainability such

as stormwater management, green purchasing, alternative energy supply, and

energy demand management and transportation.

Finally, a small number of initiatives addressing the wider concerns of sustain-

able development, rather than strictly the building, are starting to emerge, such

as the City of New Westminster’s Smart Growth Development Guide or the City

of Coquitlam’s Low Impact Development manual and Guide to Best Site Devel-

opment Practices.

3.4 ResoURces

West Coast Environmental Law. 2002. Cutting Green Tape: An Action Plan for

Removing Regulatory Barriers to Green Innovations. WCEL: www.wcel.org/

Regional District of Nanaimo: Local Government Green Building Programs:

www.rdn.bc.ca/cms.asp?wpID=1046

City of Vancouver Green Building Website:

www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/southeast/greenbuildings/

City of New Westminster Smart Growth Development Checklist:

www.newwestcity.ca/cityhall/planning/index.htm

City of Coquitlam:

www.coquitlam.ca/Business/Developing+Coquitlam/default.htm

City of Richmond. Environmental Purchasing Guide:

www.richmond.ca/services/environment/policies/purchasing.htm



4.0 WateR Use anD conseRVatIon

4.1 IntRoDUctIon

As the GVRD has expanded and grown in population, increasing demand for

water has put pressure on its water resources, while resulting in higher energy

use for pumping potable and wastewater, and greater volumes of water to be

treated. Increasing volumes of municipal wastewater effluents are one of the

largest pollutant sources by volume to Canadian waters and contribute to eco-

system, socio-economic and human health impacts.

Through the adoption of water conservation policies, amendments to plumbing

fixture performance rates, implementation of metering programs, and creation

of incentive programs for users to upgrade systems, local municipalities and the

Region as a whole can be proactive in addressing any future water shortages by

acting immediately.

This chapter addresses various design and technological solutions to conserve

water, specifically looking at innovative wastewater technologies and water use

reduction strategies. Water efficient landscaping strategies are an important

component of reducing demand for potable water and are addressed in the

GVRD’s supplementary document ECOLOGICAL SITE DEVELOPMENT: Regional

Strategies for Design, Construction and Maintenance.

4.2 DesIgn solUtIons

Water use reduction is a current environmental priority for many local munici-

palities. There are a number of design and technological solutions that can be

easily implemented, and have potentially low impact on capital costs and will

result in operating costs savings.

The following design solutions are broken into two categories: innovative waste-

water technologies and water use reduction technologies. These solutions will

help design teams achieve LEED credits WE c2.0 - Innovative Wastewater Reduc-

tion and WE c3.� and c3.2 Water Use Reduction.

Individual responsibilities and timing of documenting these design solutions for

a LEED application are summarized in section 4.3.

The Region’s average per-capita consumption of treated potable water has declined over the past decade, while total water demand has increased by an estimated �5 per cent over the last �3 years (GVRDa 2005).

According to the GVRD Municipal Water Demand by Sector report (2005), water consumed by resi-dences in the GVRD in 200� was at a daily rate of 320 litres per person. This is lower than the provincial average of 425 litres/day for the same period, but much higher than the national rate of 343 litres/day (GVRDb 2005).


4.2.1 Innovative Wastewater technologies

a. Rainwater Reuse

Rainwater reuse consists of harvesting, storing and distributing rainwater for

use throughout the development. This water can be directly used for irrigation

or non-potable uses within the building once acceptable levels of filtration have

been performed.

Implementation Considerations:

Rainwater can be captured on the roof and transported for storage in a tank.

The tank will usually have an overflow to deal with excess capacity. In the case

of lower than required capacity a system will allow for potable water by-pass

system. The water stored will then be filtered and pumped to non-potable water

fixtures, including water closets, irrigation systems or other water fixtures where

human consumption does not occur.

Cost Considerations:

The cost involved in implementing a rainwater harvesting system includes the

following:

• the installation and purchase of the storage tank;

• filtration devices to ensure a minimum quality of water;

• additional piping to the demand sources where rainwater will be used; and

• the potential for locating the tank in an aesthetically pleasing location.

The cost of storage is usually the most expensive part of implementing this

strategy. There are also methods for reducing the upfront costs, these include:

• Potentially, on larger sites, the designers could utilize the water volume as a

heat sink and integrate it into the building’s HVAC system.

• Locating the tank in an elevated location, this will negate the provision for

pumps to supply water.

The Capital Regional District’s 2004 Strategic Plan for Water Management

provides a detailed breakdown of costs for various rainwater systems. Refer to

Appendix D for Cost Summary of Potential Rainwater Systems.

Cost Increase: Moderate

Ease of Implementation: Moderate

Payback: Immediate




to Difficult

Payback: Moderate

b. greywater Reuse

Greywater reuse consists of re-routing the wastewater from washroom basins,

showers, and drinking fountains for reuse in non-potable applications such as

urinals and toilets, building mechanical systems (e.g., cooling towers), or site

irrigation.


Consider the following greywater reuse implementation issues:

• A separate set of pipes for the supply and extraction of the water will be

required. One set of supply pipes will be dedicated for potable uses, while

the other set of pipes will carry the treated greywater to the non-potable

demand points. Two sets of piping are required at the extraction point, so

that the blackwater does not mix with the greywater that is anticipated to

be recycled.

• Greywater reuse is more common in new developments as pipe runs and

locations can be designed right from the start, whereas renovation projects

can prove to be more challenging because the entire system needs to be

redesigned. The feasibility of these systems should be made on a case by

case basis.

• Greywater reuse is usually more feasible in locations where the demand for

non-potable water is relatively high. These include places such as: restau-

rants, laundries, commercial buildings, and projects where the availability of

municipal water and wastewater infrastructure is limited, such as urban infill

and rural development.

Building users should be educated on the appropriate disposal of foreign mat-

ter, maintaining the quality of the recycling system.

The BC Municipal Sewage Regulation (MSR) and the BC Building Code Part 8

specifies standards that the providers of reclaimed water must meet in order to

protect human health and the environment.



The cost for greywater systems can vary depending on a number of variables.

Potential parameters include:

• the amount of water required;

• the level of treatment required; and

• the amount of extra piping necessary.

c. on-site sewage treatment

Wastewater technologies use a variety of processes to treat sewage. Artificial

wetlands or mechanical systems utilize these processes, either by imitating

natural systems or by using physical, chemical and biological technologies simi-

lar to publicly-owned treatment systems.


• The Municipal Sewage Regulation standards and building codes still apply

for the re-use of water.

• No need for double piping on the extraction side of the cycle (an advantage

over greywater recycling). This is because all of the water leaving the build-

ing is captured and either sent directly to the sewer, or sent to the recycling

plant.

On-site sewage treatment is usually more feasible in locations where there is

a high demand for non-potable water and a high supply of blackwater. These

include building types such as:

• High density residential developments;

• Hotels; and

• Municipal buildings where a supply for the recycled water could be sought,

(i.e., street cleaning, park irrigation, etc).


Innovative wastewater technologies have a high capital cost associated with

them and can be challenging to implement, at both the design and construction

phases. For this type of technology, it is recommended to seek additional project

funding to support any increased capital costs.

Cost Increase: High

Ease of Implementation: Difficult

Payback: Long


4.2.2 Water Use Reduction

Plumbing codes require prescriptive fixture units, which means that engineering

pipe sizing cannot be altered based on actual flow until it reaches the munici-

pal infrastructure. In other words, savings cannot be sought on reducing pipe

sizes; rather, savings are based on the reduction of water, and as municipal water

charges increase, the savings will increase. The following sections outline solu-

tions for conserving potable water.

a. low- or Dual-flush toilets

Ultra-low- flush toilets use 6.0 litres per flush, which is in accordance with the

new BC Regulation for Low Flow Toilets in BC . Dual flow toilets have a “half-

flush” feature that uses only 3 litres rather than the full 6 litres. When used in

combination with low flow fixtures, municipalities can expect to achieve 20% to

30% reduction in potable water.


• The provincial Water Conservation Plumbing Regulation requires that all

newly installed toilets, for new construction and renovation projects, use 6

litres or less of water per flush.

• The requirements for urinals remain at 5.7 litres or less of water per flush

whereas the baseline for LEED is 3.8 litres.

• Check performance of low flush fixtures as some perform better than oth-

ers. Discuss performance issues with facilities staff from other municipalities.

See resource section for references to market research reports.

The table below summarizes the types of toilets available in BC for minimizing

water consumption.

leeD canada-nc 1.0 fixture Performance Rates

Fixture Type Litres per Flush

Conventional water closet 6.0

Dual flush 6.0/ 3.0

Low-Flow water closet 4.0

Ultra Low-Flow water closet 3.0

Composting toilet 0

Cost Increase: None

Ease of Implementation: Easy

Payback: Immediate



Additional costs associated with washroom fixtures are more related to aesthet-

ics rather than low water consumption. There is, therefore, no cost premium

associated with low flush toilets.

b. low flow faucets and showerhead

When low flow faucets and showerheads are used in combination with low or

ultra low-flush toilets, municipalities can expect to achieve a 20% and poten-

tially a 30% reduction of potable water consumption depending on baseline

conditions.


• Low-flow lavatory faucets consume anywhere between �.8 and 3.6 litres per

minute, compared with conventional faucets of �5-�8 litres per minute.

• Nearly all water-using appliances and fixtures can be purchased with water

conservation options. Look for appliances that are Energy Star-rated.

• Water-saving faucet aerators can be installed without a change in the “feel”

of the water flow pressure.

leeD canada-nc 1.0 fixture Performance Rates

Fixture Type Flow Rate (LPM)

Low-flow lavatory 6.8

Low-flow kitchen sink 6.8

Low-flow shower 6.8


There is no significant capital cost increase for ultra-low consumption fixtures

and these fixtures can often be accommodated within typical construction

budgets.

c. Waterless Urinals

As the name indicates, these fixtures do not use water. They use advanced

hydraulic design, and a lighter-than-urine fluid that sits at the top of the liquid,

providing the “trap” that keeps odours out of the restroom, as long the urinals

are well-maintained.

Cost Increase: None


Payback: Immediate

Cost Increase: None


Payback: Immediate

GVRD Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings 2�


• For waterless urinals to function properly one must ensure a reliable pitch

in the drain line;

• Maintenance staff must be willing to learn new procedures; and

• If maintenance and operations staff are concerned with performance and

maintenance problems associated with waterless urinals, it is recommend-

ed to install a demonstration urinal in another similar facility to see how it

performs, what the maintenance issues are, and gather occupant feedback.


Waterless urinals are currently slightly more expensive than comparable con-

ventional fixtures. However, institutional and commercial building budgets will

usually support the use of higher quality plumbing fixtures. In addition, the

elimination of the water line for the fixture can result in a cost-neutral design.

This technology is presented in greater detail in Appendix E: GVRD’s Technology

Fact Sheets.

D. automatic sensor controls on faucets

A variety of self-closing, slow-closing and electronic sensor faucets are available

on the market and are used readily to conserve water in institutional and com-

mercial buildings.


• They are particularly effective in high use public areas where it is more likely

that faucets may be left running.


It is important to consider any maintenance concerns because this can affect

cost as well as water conservation. For example, with battery-operated sensors, it

will be necessary to consider the labour and cost of changing batteries. Trade-

offs between increased water conservation and maintenance costs must be

observed.

Cost Increase: None


Payback: Immediate


e. metering of water use

Decisions about the implementation of a metering program for charging for

water use must be made at the municipal level. However, metering systems can

also be used to provide information to building owners and occupiers about

their water use. Metering water usage can be a powerful tool for promoting bet-

ter water usage, and identifying abnormal water usage patterns.

Municipalities in the region have applied a wide range of water-conservation

measures. For example, the Cities of Richmond, Delta, Surrey, White Rock and

West Vancouver have or plan to implement a universal metering program.


• Implement a water meter on the building’s water mains as well as on all

water meters within the building (i.e., cooling towers, domestic hot and cold

water, swimming pools, etc).

• Integrate meters into the building management system. This will enable

facility staff to log water consumption of all major water uses.


Most municipal governments that are introducing metered water supplies are

passing on costs directly to the user of the systems, through increasing the cost

of water rates.

Additional costs include connecting the water meter to a building management

system which enables building owners and facility’s staff to log consumed water.

4.3 leeD ResPonsIbIlItIes anD tImIng

The following professionals play a role in implementing the above design solu-

tions and documenting them for the LEED application:

• client: must provide design team with accurate numbers for full and part-

time occupants, along with a gender break down and indication of transient

occupant loads in order for the team to calculate the project’s Full Time

Equivalency (FTE) for the occupant load. This information can be readily

gathered during the programming phase for a new civic facility. These num-

bers will be used for multiple LEED credit calculations including: Sustainable

Sites Credits 4, and Water Efficiency Credits 2 and 3.



Payback: Long


• contractor: ensures the design philosophy is transferred from the design

into the final construction of the building.

• landscape architect: is responsible for selecting plants that are suitable

to the local environment and also designing and documenting a low flow

watering system. If the project is pursuing a rainwater collection system for

landscape irrigation, they must coordinate the irrigation requirement for

the proposed landscape with the mechanical engineer who will responsible

for the cistern design.

• mechanical engineer: will perform water use reduction calculations and

include fixture performance requirements into project specifications. It is

important for the mechanical engineer to establish a water use baseline for

interior loads early on in the design process as it enables the design team

to gauge whether they are track for water conservation and LEED goals.

The mechanical engineer must coordinate fixtures with the project archi-

tect and interior designer. They are responsible for signing off on the LEED

documentation. To design an on-site water treatment system, the mechani-

cal engineer will work closely with the client and a wastewater specialist.

Finally, they should work closely with the landscape consultant in determin-

ing the irrigation or rainwater harvesting requirements.

leeD Requirements and submittals

credit

WE c�: Water efficient landscaping

WE c2: Innovative wastewater

technologies

WE c3: Water use reduction

level of Input for leeD Documentation

Moderate: Drawings, calculations and

narrative

Extensive: Drawings, specifications,

calculations and narrative

Moderate: Cut sheets and calculations

Responsibility for Documentation

Landscape architect and

mechanical engineer

Mechanical engineer

Mechanical engineer


4.5 case stUDIes

city of Vancouver mount Pleasant civic centre – leeD-bc gold

Design Team: Busby Perkins+Will, Stantec, Schenke Bawol Engineers, CY Lo &

Associates, and Durante Kreuk Ltd.

Status: Under Construction

Mount Pleasant Civic Centre will be a new �2,000m² mixed-use facility com-

prising a community centre, community branch library, childcare facility, and

housing complex. It is currently under construction and being developed by the

City of Vancouver in the heart of the Mount Pleasant community in Vancouver,

BC. In �987, Vancouver City Council adopted the “Community Development

Plan for Mount Pleasant”, outlining policies for redevelopment and revitalization

of the community. As part of this community development plan, the City saw an

opportunity to take a leadership role in developing the new multi-use facility

for the community. The City thereby mandated that the project should reflect

sustainable building practices and attain LEED Silver certification as means of

demonstrating environmental leadership in the community. Since the inception

of the project, the LEED project goal has evolved and the project now antici-

pates achieving LEED-BC Gold certification.

4.4 sUmmaRy

solution

Rainwater reuse

Greywater reuse

On-site sewage treatment

Ultra-low flush toilets of dual flush toilets

Low flow faucets and showerhead

Waterless urinals

Automatic sensor controls on faucets

Metering of water use

capital cost Increase

Moderate

Moderate

High

None

None

None

None

Moderate

ease of Implementation

Moderate

Moderate to Difficult

Difficult

Easy

Easy

Easy

Easy

Moderate

Payback

Immediate

Moderate

Long

Immediate

Immediate

Immediate

Immediate

Long

Photo: Busby Perkins+Will Architects


Water features for Mount Pleasant Civic Centre include:

• Ultra low-flow aerators for kitchen sinks, lavatories, and shower heads

• Civic Centre shower water flow regulated by push button timers

• Low-flow toilets

• Tenant Education, Awareness, and Monitoring Program

• On-site rainwater collection cistern (to reduce potable water use for irriga-

tion)

• Implementation of a strict appliance procurement policy to ensure that

dishwashers and washing machines selected for residential suites use the

minimum amount of water possible.

The combination of water features is projected to lead to a savings of 4,080m3 of

water annually, for a 2-year simple payback period.

city of Vancouver national street Works yard Project – leeD-bc gold

Design Team: Omicron Consulting Group

Status: Completed 2005

The �2-acre City of Vancouver National Street Works Yard serves as an Engineer-

ing Operations Facility. The project includes an administration centre, a garage

and radio shop, parking operations, warehouses, a car wash and a fuelling sta-

tion. The project was a City of Vancouver’s pilot initiative to promote sustainable

design practices.

The City’s leadership and level of commitment to sustainable principles is

reflected in the design expertise employed and the application of sound envi-

ronmental building practices, which culminated in two of the facility’s buildings

achieving LEED Gold Certification.

Water features for the City of Vancouver National Street Works Yard Project

include:

• Rainwater is collected, treated and used to flush toilets in the building

• Waterless urinals, low flow faucets and dual flush water closets combine to

reduce water consumption

• Drought resistant landscaping eliminates the need for permanent irrigation

systems

These features resulted a 75% reduction in potable water use, which is a savings

of over 2,000,000 litres of water annually.

Photo: Omicron


4.6 ResoURces

Canadian Water and Wastewater Association: www.cwwa.ca

Capital Regional District, Water Recycling Information: www.crd.bc.ca/water/

GVRD BuildSmart Water Conservation Website:

www.gvrd.bc.ca/water/conservation.htm

Maximum Performance (MaP), Testing of Popular Toilet Models, July 2006

www.cwwa.ca

Waste Management Act Municipal Sewage Regulation. (BC Reg. �29/99). Sec-

tion �0: Use of Reclaimed Water. Schedule 2 – Permitted Uses and Standards for

Reclaimed Water. (Effective from July �5, �999).

Code of Practice for the Use of Reclaimed Water. (Issued May 200�) A companion

document to the Municipal Sewage Regulation.

BC Building Code: Part 8 Plumbing Systems provides guidelines for installation

of plumbing systems including non-potable water systems (Section 7.7).

Water Conservation Plumbing Regulation of �998: available from the Building

Policy Section, BC Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It mandates water efficiency and

profiles water conservation measures for British Columbia.

4.7 RefeRences

Greater Vancouver Regional District (A). Water Consumption Statistics. 2005 Edi-

tion. Burnaby, BC: Greater Vancouver Regional District, Operations and Mainte-

nance Dept., 2005.

Greater Vancouver Regional District (B). Policy and Planning Dept. GVRD and

Municipal Water Demand by Sector. Burnaby, BC: Greater Vancouver Regional

District, 2005.


5.0 eneRgy

5.1 IntRoDUctIon

Conventional buildings rely heavily on fossil fuels to heat, cool, light and run

facility systems, they contribute significantly to local air pollution and in turn,

global climate change. Moving towards more energy efficient building prac-

tices is consistent with the objectives set out in the Greater Vancouver Regional

District (GVRD)’s Liveable Regions Strategic Plan, and can help municipalities

save money, minimize local air pollution, create jobs and contribute to the local

economy. More so, by reducing operational energy, not only will a reduction in

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions be realized, but local governments can also

seize the opportunity to act as leaders in energy efficient design and green solu-

tions for all other sectors.


Optimizing building energy use will significantly decrease life cycle costs

through reduced operating costs. If appropriate optimization strategies are

implemented, such as considering tradeoffs between envelope performance

and mechanical system size, the capital cost can be the same or less than for

conventional buildings.

The LEED system significantly rewards good energy performance. Ten points are

available for energy performance, often making the difference between certifi-

cation levels achieved. Energy modeling should be done in the early phases of

the project and updated regularly to ensure that targets set out at the begin-

ning of the project are met. As well, it allows entire project teams to analyze and

consider energy savings of various design solutions.

Useful energy modeling software includes EE4, DOE 2 or other full-year, hourly

simulation programs. See Section 5.6 for additional resources.

Figures � and 2 show energy use breakdown for a typical office building and

a typical mixed use residential development. They demonstrate to the project

team where opportunities lie in order to reduce energy (i.e., lighting).

The following design solutions are broken into two categories: energy conserva-

tion and energy generation. Individual responsibilities and timing of document-

ing these design solutions for a LEED application are summarized in section 5.3.

Fig. 2 - Annual Energy Consumption by End Use

Fig. � - Building Energy Distribution for Typical Mixed Use Residential Project

Heating38%

DHW23%

HVAC Fan5% HVAC Aux

1%Lighting

21%

Plug10%

Cooling2%

Lights21%

Hot Water2%Fans

9%Pumps & Aux.

4%Cooling

6%

Heating32%

Plug Loads26%


5.2.1 eneRgy conseRVatIon solUtIons

a. building envelope

Good green design starts with the more passive elements of a building, these

include giving attention to the following:

• Building orientation and massing

• Glazing and framing selection

• External shading devices

• Insulation levels


Project teams should coordinate efforts from the outset to make choices that

take advantage of significant energy reduction opportunities while not detract-

ing from other aspects of sustainable buildings such as indoor environmental

quality. For example, a reduction in glazing can have energy savings while hav-

ing negative impacts on the ability to effectively daylight a space, thus affecting

occupant satisfaction and productivity. Costs for productivity losses can greatly

outweigh any capital savings realised in construction.

Municipal project managers should work with the design team to determine

what the budget can afford in terms of external shading devices and glazing

quality and quantity. This examination should take into account the downsizing

of mechanical equipment that occurs with improved performance.


• Cost implications can be observed for higher performance glazing; however,

costs vary greatly depending on actual market supply and demand rates.

• Cost premiums for external façade elements and premium performance

fenestration elements can often be absorbed through the reduction of

other elements within the building, such as, reduced plant space require-

ments, reduced duct sizes through smaller quantities of air required, etc.

• A full building simulation can highlight the tradeoffs between different

glazing systems, overall energy performance and mechanical equipment

requirements, as well as the payback for such systems.

Cost Increase: None


Payback: Immediate to moderate


b. Heating

The two figures above both depicting energy consumption suggest that energy

associated with heating dominates the annual energy demand of typical resi-

dential and commercial buildings. They show that the heating system efficiency

can have a more significant impact on a building’s energy performance than any

other system; as such the project team will likely benefit from dedicating consid-

erable effort to the design and integration of the heating system.


In considering an optimal heating design system, a series of steps should be

considered, including:

• Optimize the building envelope.

• Consider the heat delivery method. Heat delivery methods that rely on

water are more effective than those that rely on air or electric resistance.

• Consider high efficiency heat generation options. They can include:

• condensing boilers

• geothermal systems (depending on soil and load conditions)

• district system (if available)

• Select a system that has reduced maintenance costs and improved occu-

pant satisfaction. This should be a highly prioritized consideration for the

design team. Radiant systems that include both cooling and heating are

one such example.

There are many good conventional systems that can deliver good thermal com-

fort and operational efficiency.


Cost issues depend directly on the nature of the project, the design team will be

required to investigate each applicable technology and perform analysis (simu-

lation and cost) as required.

It is worth ensuring that the design team looks into all available incentive pro-

grams to ensure that this payback period is as short as possible.

Cost Increase: None to moderate

Ease of Implementation: Easy to

Moderate

Payback: Immediate


c. cooling

While peak cooling loads in a space can be of a similar order of magnitude to

peak heating loads, the energy consumption associated with cooling systems

is typically dramatically lower in the Lower Mainland’s relatively mild summer

climate. Consequently, dramatic reduction or elimination of cooling systems

through effective building design is a smart energy-saving and capital cost-sav-

ing strategy.


Project team should consider the following when wanting to reduce cooling

loads:

• Look at orientation, shading options, and envelope performance to see if it

is possible with the internal requirements of a space to use entirely natural

ventilation for cooling.

• Investigate a mixed-mode strategy. This involves naturally ventilating

through an operable façade when conditions are appropriate, and mechani-

cally ventilating with the façade closed in extreme conditions.

• Focus on equipment efficiency, such as the chiller’s coefficient of perform-

ance (COP), and effective staging of chiller sets.

• Evaluate alternate air delivery and zone cooling systems. These types of

systems can drastically reduce air distribution quantities down to minimum

outdoor air rates as the majority of cooling is performed within the space.

Types of systems include:

• Chilled ceilings

• Passive chilled beams (active beams not preferred due to increased fan

power requirements)

• Wall mounted chilled elements

• The above systems can offer opportunities to use free cooling (when

outdoor air temperatures are similar to the supply air temperatures)

for much longer periods of the year. This will lead to reduced cooling

energy consumption.

• Consider the choice of refrigerant. Recently, there has been a market drive

through the implementation of LEED, to move to more environmentally

sustainable refrigerants that have little or no effect on global warming and

the ozone layer.

Each year, the building sector consumes at least 40% of the raw materials and energy produced in the world (Athena Institute 2006).



Payback: Moderate


• Examine high efficiency process cooling such as for ice skating rinks. This

can result in not only less costly operations but also with LEED points under

the energy performance credits. It is important to look at not only the

equipment efficiency of these systems but also the heat recovery potential

of the systems.


Costs for cooling systems will depend directly on the nature of the project. The

design team will be required to investigate each applicable technology and

analyze them as required.

D. lighting

Lighting is often the second-largest energy user in a building. There are numer-

ous opportunities to reduce a building’s lighting load.


The following are a number of aspects to be considered when designing (or

retro-fitting) a project’s lighting system:

• Daylighting strategies can not only bring increased occupant satisfac-

tion and productivity but also significant energy savings. Daylight sensors

should be considered where the lights are either switched off or dimmed

when there is adequate natural light within the space. See Appendix E:

GVRD’s Technology Fact Seet for more information on Daylighting.

• Strategies for reducing lighting energy use come not only with the fixture

and luminaire selection but also with good overall design of the lighting

strategies.

• Considering lower overall lighting levels with enhanced task lighting can

lower energy usage in office areas.

• High volume spaces such as sports facilities can benefit from recent ad-

vancements in fluorescent lighting that make it possible to move away from

traditional lamp types.

• Currently, LED technology is used for applications such as exit lights, but the

use of LEDs for space lighting applications should be viable very soon. The

very low power requirements of this lamp type should make it an appealing

choice to municipal applications where not only low energy use but also

long lamp life can result in a low life cycle cost.



Payback: Immediate


• Wherever daylight penetration is optimized, attention should be given to

effective glare control. Failure to acknowledge this element can result in a

space that is inhabitable for a large proportion of the year. LEED credit (EQ

c8.�) that rewards daylighting performance requires glare control, recogniz-

ing the need to control the daylight in a space. Examples of glare control

strategies include:

• external louvres (both fixed and operable – preferred)

• internal blinds/screens (�-2% visible light transmittance, preferably dark

in colour)

lighting fixture Performance comparison chart

Incandescent

5% of energy converted into the

visible light spectrum

Fluorescent

4-5 times more efficient than

incandescent globes

LED

Produce 60% fewer lumens per

watt than fluorescents, but have

�0 times the life expectancy

Cost Increase: None


Payback: Immediate


Improvements in lighting technology are occurring all the time, both in terms of

lighting quality and power requirements, thus reducing cost premiums for high

efficiency lighting and reducing energy bills.

Re-lamping costs can be high if attention is not paid to ensuring long lamp life

for fixtures.

e. Domestic Hot Water

For community centres, ice rinks, fire stations and a few other municipal build-

ing types, domestic hot water consumption can be relatively high compared to

office-type buildings. Particularly for these facilities, domestic hot water systems

should be designed to reduce energy consumption.


The first place to start designing for water reduction is with consumption fig-

ures. Looking at low water consuming fixtures will help not only with the energy

side of LEED but also with the water efficiency credits.


Once demand is reduced as much as is practical, strategies to reduce the energy

associated with generating hot water include:

• Pre-heated water using condensing boiler return water;

• Heat recovered from some mechanical equipment can be used to pre-heat

water; and

• Solar hot water tubes or panels.

Heat recovery and solar hot water tubes (or panels) are excellent methods for

dramatically reducing summer boiler use for buildings and systems. Additionally,

the hot water generated can be used for other uses such as swimming pools.

There is a detailed description of the use of solar domestic hot water in Appen-

dix E: GVRD’s Technology Fact Sheets.


• Single dwelling residential domestic hot water systems cost $800-$�,400

per person, installed.

• Systems for multi-unit domestic hot water (DHW) and similar commercial-

scale year-round applications cost $�00-200 per annual gigajoule offset.

• It is unlikely that a solar hot water system will cater for all of a project’s hot

water requirements; therefore the payback of the systems can be somewhat

reduced depending on the size of the unit. However, short term paybacks

are fairly easily achievable.

f. Ventilation

The energy impact of a building’s ventilation system is two-fold. First, energy is

consumed, warming or cooling the air to the temperature at which it is appro-

priate to deliver it to the space (identified earlier in heating and cooling). Next,

energy is consumed by any fans that must push the air into occupied spaces.


• High efficiency motors on all fans is essential. This item also applies for

pumps.

• Variable frequency drives are highly recommended as it allows the fans to

be throttled down to suit the quantity of air being delivered. This item also

applies for pumps.



Payback: Immediate


• Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) should be investigated, DCV regulates

the fan speed based on the levels of carbon dioxide within the space. More

information can be found in Appendix E: GVRD’s Technology Fact Sheets.


The above recommendations currently incur a slight cost penalty; however,

trends associated with these elements mean that prices will fall as they become

mainstream elements utilized within buildings. This being said however, annual

energy figures are reduced sufficiently that small payback periods of less than

five years are realized.

5.2.2 energy generation solutions

a. District systems

Many local municipalities including the City of North Vancouver and the City of

Vancouver have considered or installed high efficiency district heating systems

in certain higher density development areas. By doing this, they have been

able to save significant quantities of energy and greenhouse gases and provide

consumers with a better than market heating system for a relatively low incre-

mental cost. District systems are ones where a central heating and/or cooling

plant provides services to a number of buildings. Efficiencies are created as it

is commonly noted in building dynamics that peak loads do not always occur

at the same time, therefore system sizes can be reduced and more effectively

controlled.


Municipalities are in a position to govern utilities and have their councils set

rates so long as they own the system – an option that can be a revenue stream

or an opportunity for the municipality and to ensure that areas are able to

achieve higher environmental performance.

Several options for district systems are available. Their suitability varies widely

depending on the specific project conditions including (among others):

• development density;

• soil conditions;

• development size; and

• funding opportunities.



Payback: Immediate to moderate


The potential make-up systems of the central plants are endless, but a few com-

mon options currently in use in today’s marketplace include:

• high efficiency gas-fired boilers;

• biomass systems including co-generation or boilers; and

• gas-fired micro-turbines or geothermal systems.

An in-depth feasibility study is recommended for each case, this will ensure that

the correct mix of options is considered for the project and the correct design

resolution is attained.


It is often more economical to implement higher efficiency systems for a com-

munity scale development.

b. on-site energy generation

On-site, renewable energy can be generated in very small scale applications as

demonstration projects including micro turbines and photo-voltaics (PV). Larger

scale building applications can include greater use of wind, PV, or other renew-

able electrical generation equipment. LEED Canada will also now consider solar

hot water tubes under the LEED EA Credit 2 Renewable Energy.


With such a wide range of technologies available, the application considerations

vary widely. There are, however, certain issues that remain constant:

• The availability of whatever “fuel” is needed for the system, be it sunshine,

wind or readily available, affordable biomass, will determine if the technol-

ogy is appropriate for the application.

• Localized conditions must be checked for the availability of reliable wind or

sun.

• Transportation infrastructure should be investigated to see how likely it is

to transport biomass to site if it is not available from an on-site source.

Overall, on-site generation can be both economically and environmentally ben-

eficial but there are many technical and non-technical factors that vary from site

to site, so project teams must spend time investigating the feasibility of options

for their specific application.

The National Climate Change Sec-retariat estimates that total annual energy use per capita for munici-pal operations is approximately 2,000MJ per capita. Buildings are estimated to account for approxi-mately 750MJ of this total, almost 40%. (Pembina Institute 2003).



Payback: Immediate to long



• Financing considerations are paramount for determining the feasibility of

this kind of system.

• Financing can be separated from the project’s capital cost if the system is

large enough and a separate investor can be found.

Costs will depend primarily on local utility costs and capital cost of system.

These costs should be explored upfront in the project as many grants are avail-

able from governments, utilities and private sources, and applications should

be submitted early on in the design process for these external funding sources.

For example, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is a large supporter of

alternative energy infrastructure: see the Resources section.


Using an integrated design process ensures that energy conservation is truly re-

alized. The following professionals play a role in implementing the above design

solutions, exploring tradeoffs between systems, and documenting them for the

LEED application:

• architect: is responsible for maintaining the client’s design intent especially

with respect to the form, durability, and performance of the building, as well

as with respect to building integrated technologies. For example, the archi-

tect will coordinate how photovoltaic systems are integrated with the build-

ing form. Throughout the design the Architect will develop wall sections

and details documenting how the systems will be assembled. The Architect

also needs to pay special attention to preventing thermal bridging, which

allows significant heat loss from and gain into the building. They will work

closely with the Mechanical Engineer in balancing passive design strategies

(i.e., natural ventilation and daylighting) with the mechanical system design

to optimize the overall building performance.

• building envelope/building science consultant: may be hired by the

Architect or Owner to assist in the envelope design. During the conceptual

phase, they will provide technical input to help design an effective building

envelope. During construction, they may provide quality assurance reviews.

• client: must provide decisions based on design team advice as to what is

acceptable in terms of cost premiums and payback periods.

An estimated 75 cents from every dollar spent on conventional en-ergy supply leaves the community to pay generators, refineries, and large utility companies. However, a dollar in energy savings can repre-sent much more if spent within the community where it can circulate several times over. Cost savings on energy can also alleviate some of the pressures of increased demand on infrastructure and the reduction in transfer payments from federal or provincial funding sources. (Pem-bina Institute 2003)


• commissioning authority: is typically hired by the Owner to review the

design at several stages throughout design and to verify installation and

functional performance of energy related systems. They should be hired

early on in the design process (i.e., by end of Schematic Design).

• contractor: will ensure the design philosophy is transferred from the de-

sign into the final construction of the building

• electrical engineer: if there is no Interior Designer on the project, the

Electrical Consultant may be responsible for maintaining the client’s design

intent with respect to interior lighting. They will also be responsible for

coordinating control systems with the Mechanical Engineer.

• Interior Designer: may be a member of the Architectural firm or an inde-

pendent consultant. The Interior Designer is responsible for maintaining

their design intent with respect to lighting.

• mechanical engineer: will perform sensitivity analysis on specific items in

order to provide design team with a clear understanding as to the impacts

of each alternate strategy. They will work closely with the architectural team

to optimize the building performance. It is typically the Mechanical Engi-

neer who will sign off on the LEED documentation required for most of the

LEED Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisites and Credits.

• simulation specialist: may be a member of the Mechanical firm or an in-

dependent consultant. Their role is to prepare a preliminary energy model

during schematic design or even earlier to assist the entire design team in

making decisions regarding the building envelope, heating, cooling, ventila-

tion and lighting systems. The simulation is updated throughout the design

and a final update is done once energy related shop drawings are received

from the contractors.


credit

EA p2: Minimum Energy Performance

EA c�.�-�.�0: Optimize Energy

Performance


Extensive: Letter template signed

Energy model

Narrative of proposed

measures

Equipment cut-sheets

Construction details


Mechanical Engineer with input from

Architect and Electrical Engineer


IEQ c8.�-8.2: Daylight & Views Moderate: Letter template signed

Narrative

Calculations

Drawings or computer

simulations

Architect

5.4 sUmmaRy

solution

Building envelope

Heating

Cooling

Lighting

Domestic Hot Water

Ventilation

District Systems

On-Site Generation


None - moderate

None - moderate

None - moderate

None - moderate

None

None - moderate

Moderate

Moderate


Moderate

Easy - moderate

Moderate

Easy

Easy

Moderate

Difficult

Difficult

Payback

Immediate - moderate

Immediate

Moderate

Immediate

Immediate

Immediate

Immediate - moderate

Immediate - long

credit

EA c2.�-2.3: Renewable Energy

EA p3: CFC Reduction in HVAC&R

Equipment and Elimination of Halons

EA c3: Ozone Protection


Moderate: Letter template signed

Narrative of systems

Calculations

Easy: Letter template signed

Equipment cut-sheets

showing refrigerants used


Mechanical Engineer with input

from the Electrical Engineer

Mechanical Engineer


5.5 case stUDIes

Vancouver International airport – solar Hot Water Heating system

Design Team: Stantec

Completed: 2003

The Vancouver Airport Authority has a long-term goal to improve electricity

efficiency by �5% by 2007 relative to 200� levels and improve fuel efficiency by

�5% by 2009 relative to 2004 levels.

The resource efficiency program promotes the importance of resource-efficient

operations and identifies ways to reduce consumption of natural gas, diesel,

gasoline, water and electricity at the airport. The Airport Authority improved

its natural gas efficiency through the installation of a solar-powered hot water

heating system in the Domestic Terminal in 2003. The solar-powered hot water

heating system, along with the implementation of night-time set-backs, CO2

sensors, and improved scheduling and system tune-ups, has led to a decrease of

nearly 30% in natural gas use in the Domestic Terminal since 200�.

city of north Vancouver – lonsdale energy corporation – District energy

Design Team: Stantec

Status: Ongoing

The Lower Lonsdale area of the City of North Vancouver is an existing urban area

with a high density of mixed residential and commercial buildings.

The Lonsdale Energy Corporation (LEC) provides Lower Lonsdale with depend-

able, clean and competitively priced energy, while significantly reducing the de-

mand for electricity. The LEC district energy service is provided through a series

of mini-plants that produce hot water. The resulting hot water energy is then

distributed through underground pipes in city streets to buildings connected

to the system. Once used in the buildings, the water is returned to a mini-plant,

reheated and circulated back to the connected buildings.

Each mini-plant contains high-efficiency natural gas boilers with efficiencies of

up to 98%. The interconnected mini-plant concept provides greater financial

and operational flexibility for LEC during system build-out. Marginal costs of

system growth are more closely matched with marginal revenues. In addition,

system changes or improvements can be more easily incorporated into future

growth with the distributed plant versus a central plant generation model.

Photo: Stantec

Photo: James Dow


Each ‘mini plant’ houses from 4 to 6 high-efficiency condensing boilers, requiring

a floor area equivalent to several parking spaces. Developers are asked to pro-

vide, in certain select building sites, space for a small energy plant. To date, two

‘mini-plants’ have been constructed and commissioned and are interconnected

with the in-street energy distribution system. A third plant is under construction.

municipality of West Vancouver gleneagles community centre

Design Team: Patkau Architects, Earth Tech Canada Inc., Fast & Epp, Webster

Engineering, Vaughan Landscape Planning & Design, Country West

Construction Ltd.

Completed: 2003

The Gleneagles Community Centre is a 23,000sf mixed use facility containing

a gymnasium, community living, fitness centre, art centre, childcare, and ad-

ministrative spaces. The program is organized on three levels. By virtue of the

slope the lower levels are accessible from the exterior on opposite sides of the

building. The section energizes the building. The gymnasium and multi-purpose

rooms rise through the three levels; walls that separate these volumes from

adjacent spaces are glazed to facilitate visual connection within the building.

Simultaneous views of multiple activities animate the interior; the life of the

building and the energy of the place are palpable to the community within and

without. The multi-purpose room acts in a similar way but at a smaller scale;

it provides a visual link between the child-care area and the activities below.

Simultaneous views of multiple activities animate the interior; the life of the

building and the energy of the place are palpable to the community within and

without.

The structural system consists of cast-in-place concrete floor slabs, insulated

double-wythe tilt-up concrete end walls and a heavy timber roof. This structure

is used as part of the interior climate control system of the building, and acts as

a huge thermal storage mass; a giant static heat pump, absorbing, storing and

releasing energy to create an extremely stable and robust indoor climate with

constant temperatures inside occupied spaces, regardless of exterior climate.

Radiant heating and cooling in both floors and walls maintains a set tempera-

ture; the concrete surfaces act alternately as emitters or absorbers. The thermal

energy for this system is provided by water-to-water heat pumps via a ground-

source heat exchanger under the adjacent parking area. Since air is not used for

Photo: Patkau Architects


climate control, opening windows and doors does not affect the performance

of the heating and cooling system. The building’s high efficiency mechanical

systems and building envelope design led to a mechanical plant that is 40% of

the size of the size of a conventional HVAC plant.

5.6 ResoURces

Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP)

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/commercial/financial-assistance/index.cfm?attr=20

Natural Resources Canada offers financial assistance to Commercial and Institu-

tional organizations through the Commercial Building Incentive Program. Up to

$60,000 is available for eligible organizations based on building energy savings.

Green Municipal Funds (FCM): www.fcm.ca

Funding options are available to capital environmental infrastructure projects in

the form of loans, grants or a combination of the two. A new energy sector fund-

ing opportunity is available for municipal governments and municipal energy

utilities. This opportunity is a long-term, sustainable source of low interest rate

loans and grants for municipal governments and their partners to support envi-

ronmental projects in six categories: Energy, Waste, Water, Sustainable Transpor-

tation, Brownfield Remediation, and Integrated Community Planning.

BC Hydro: www.bchydro.com/business/

BC Hydro has a number of resources for business in order to facilitate energy ef-

ficiency. Incentives are offered through the High Performance Building program;

information on energy efficient products and performance are also offered

along with the opportunity to purchase Green Power.

Terasen: www.terasengas.com

Terasen’s Efficient Boiler Program can help project teams with both design

incentives and capital cost incentives that will help with the installation of more

efficient boilers.

Local Governments for Sustainability: www.iclei.org

Pembina Institute: www.pembina.org


5.7 RefeRences

National Climate Change Secretariat: Municipalities Issue Table of Canada’s

National Climate Change Process. �998. Foundation Paper. National Climate

Change Secretariat: Ottawa. November, p.�6-�7:

www.climatechangesolutions.com/

Pembina Institute: www.climatechangesolutions.com/

Athena Sustainable Materials Institute:

www.athenasmi.ca

GVRD BuildSmart: www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/


6.0 mateRIals anD ResoURces

6.1 IntRoDUctIon

The GVRD has prioritized dealing with solid waste as one of their top environ-

mental concerns. Materials selection is a fundamental effort in the design of

green buildings, and has impacts ranging from appropriate resource extrac-

tion and reducing pressure on valuable land, through to participation in local

economies.

The assessment of materials qualities for LEED projects implies a large range of

decision factors. Materials selection will depend first on meeting the needs and

desires of user groups, which involves the balancing of cost and utility. Another

consideration is the priority of material and resource use for the building.

Trade-offs:

Because of the wide range of considerations, there are usually trade-offs in mak-

ing decisions about materials and resources. For example:

• PVC flooring is inexpensive, but it comes with a range of toxicities. A natural

alternative, linoleum, may require slightly more maintenance but for the

same, or a longer lifetime.

• Choosing a locally-manufactured material, for example, may cost a little

more than a product manufactured overseas, but in doing so, the local

economy is boosted and greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel

are reduced.

Materials choices are based on some or all the following, each of which have life

cycle and environmental impacts:

• aesthetics

• cost

• source

• aspects and processes of manufacture

• recyclability

• current resource efficiency

• durability (suitability to purpose)

• future reuse and disassembly


Embodied Energy:

An assessment of embodied energy is emerging as an important focus in ma-

terials selection: it gives a full picture of energy consumption. Nevertheless, com-

paring materials solely on the basis of embodied energy is inappropriate since

there are other factors to consider, including durability and recyclability.


More and more, manufacturers are aware of the demand for information about

green building products, and understand that they have a vested interest to

provide the information required by the LEED system. Information on the per-

centage of recycled content, place of manufacture and extraction are all details

that are usually easily obtained from the manufacturer.

The following design solutions can help municipalities reduce operational and

construction waste stream, and make smarter choices when selecting materials

for new civic facilities. LEED timing and responsibilities are summarized for these

design solutions in section 6.3.

6.2.1 Waste management

a. operational Waste management

For more than �5 years, recycling has long been a key component of the region’s

efforts to reduce solid waste. Recycling extends the life of landfills, reduces

our consumption of natural resources and creates employment opportunities.

Further, recycling keeps already-processed materials in a product stream. In

most cases, the use of recycled materials engages the use of materials with less

embodied energy than exists in virgin sources.


Municipal green buildings are not distinctly different from other green buildings

in the implementation of operational waste management. A municipal green

building such as a civic centre may generate less operational waste than a non-

municipal commercial green building, which deals more with paper waste.

Providing receptacles for operational waste management is a less urgent task,

and less difficult to implement than some other Materials and Resources credits,

but should still be considered as part of the specification. In implementing a

operational waste management program, the following should be considered:

Cost Increase: None


Payback: Not Applicable

Embodied energy, as defined by the ATHENA™ Institute, includes all energy, direct and indirect, used to transform or transport raw materi-als into products and buildings, in-cluding inherent energy contained in raw or feedstock materials that are also used as common energy sources. (Athena 2006)

Of the material collected at GVRD curbs each week, approximately 50 per cent is recycled, �7 per cent is incinerated, and the rest is sent to landfills. (GVRD 2006)


• Ensure that adequate program space is allocated for recycling storage;

• Provide receptacles and services for metals, plastics, glass, paper and card-

board, in areas convenient to building occupants; and

• Educate building users and encourage the use of reusable and refillable

items will help reduce operational waste.

Securing a company that will provide recycling and waste removal services is

key to an effective operational waste management program. Numerous recy-

cling companies exist within the GVRD.


• The costs of recycling are comparable to those for garbage disposal (ap-

proximately $�30 per tonne).

• Recycling generates revenue for the region and taxpayers, helping keep

taxes and utility costs down.

• Identifying the priority and amount of wastes for the building’s function can

help identify possible revenues.

b. construction Waste management

By reducing building construction waste, pressure on landfill is reduced. Any

Municipal building may achieve the LEED MR c2.�-2.2 Construction Waste Man-

agement credits as they are not particular to a building type.


Generally in the GVRD, construction waste management is easily achieved, with

experienced contractors becoming more familiar at each step.

An important existing resource for this process is the GVRD’s LEED for Contrac-

tors Guide. Covering contractor involvement, documentation, and providing

examples of submittals, templates, it is an invaluable resource for contractors. It

is also useful to give the contractor a copy of the LEED Letter template, which

will help guide them in proper documentation of the processes.

Consider the following tips:

• A Construction Waste Management Plan should be in place prior to con-

struction (but can be completed during the construction documentation

phase).

Cost Increase: None


Payback: Immediate


• At the beginning of the construction phase, it is useful to have a start-up

meeting with the contractor in order to make sure everyone is onboard and

understands what is required of them and their subtrades.

• Construction waste management is one of the LEED credits that must be

closely controlled from the beginning of the construction process.

• On tight urban sites there may be challenges with the placement of sepa-

rating bins.

• Weigh bills must be collected on an ongoing basis.

• Construction waste can be measured by weight or volume as long as it is

consistently measured.


Waste streams can be identified depending on the building type and construc-

tion. It is possible to generate revenues from construction waste; but generally

construction waste management is cost-neutral since any revenues from reus-

ing formwork or recycling concrete as aggregate, for example, are absorbed into

fees.

6.2.2 material specification

a. salvaged materials

Salvaged, also known as reclaimed or reused materials are commonly found

now in the GVRD marketplace, often at much lower cost than comparable new

products. Examples range throughout building materials, from construction to

interior finishes, and include hardwood flooring and recovered timber beams,

through to wiring, glulam beams, windows and toilets. Sometimes large dimen-

sion old growth timbers from older buildings are recovered, which are often

extremely valuable in today’s market.

Often salvaged materials are reclaimed from local buildings, as well as from the

building site itself, reducing life cycle and pollution costs due to transportation.

In using salvaged materials, similarly to using recycled materials from opera-

tional waste streams, products are kept in continued use and diverted from the

waste stream, lowering the total embodied energy of the building.

Cost Increase: None to moderate





The greatest barrier to the use of salvage materials may lie in the perception of

their aesthetics and/or performance; yet the quality of salvaged materials are

often just as high, sometimes substantially higher than new products in the

market.

• Salvaged materials and products should be assessed for performance and

must meet the BC Building Code by the contractor.

• In the case of structural load-bearing components, salvaged materials and

products should be assessed by an engineer.

• Sourcing of salvaged materials should occur early in the design process, in

order to allow for sourcing delays.


The lower costs of salvaged materials needs to be weighed against:

• construction management fees;

• the cost of assessment;

• the cost of storing the material (on-site or externally) if sourced early on in

the project;

• labour costs; and

• potential additional storage costs.

b. Recycled content materials

As discussed above, recycling material into new products reduces pressure on

natural resources, and lowers the embodied energy of the new product or cre-

ated assembly. Post-consumer recycled material is that taken from the consumer

waste stream, while post-industrial recycled material is usually a waste output

from one manufacture processes and that is reused in the manufacture of an-

other material. Materials containing post-consumer recycled content include, for

example, cellulose insulation, gypsum, and rubber floors. Examples of materials

containing post-industrial recycled content include steel, concrete with flyash,

insulation, and gypsum. Good recycled content backed up by maximum recycla-

bility of the material at the end of life is the best strategy.

Cost Increase: None


Payback: Immediate



By this time, most manufacturers are aware of the LEED rating system and, if

relevant, have LEED-compliant data readily available. However, sorting through

manufacturer’s claims can often require much communication and clarification.

There are accessible third-party certification programs, such as the Scientific

Certification Systems that help in verifying claims made regarding percentages

of recycled content.

The amount of recycled content in building materials is specified by the design

team. Consider the following in specifying materials with recycled content:

• Frequently, the choice between different materials in the same class comes

down to weighing a difference in a few percent of recycled content.

• The priority or weight of other environmental factors can play a part in

determining the best overall environmental choice.

• The life-cycle aspect should be taken into account when considering mate-

rial choices: some materials, such as anodized aluminium for example, are

energy-intensive to recycle and manufacture.

The GVRD has a number of Guides and standards available for input on recycled

content choices: see the list of resources in Section 6.6.


Materials with post-industrial and/or post-consumer recycled content are fre-

quently sourced at negligible or low premium. Many companies offer building

material product lines with high recycled content, specifically for LEED or green-

conscious purposes.

c. Rapidly Renewable materials

Rapidly renewable resources include wheatgrass, wool, sorghum, cotton, ash,

poplar, and others. Use of these materials is important not only for their be-

nign organic material content, but for the fact that they replenish themselves,

typically within a �0 year cycle. This means that the resource is regenerated in a

relatively shorter amount of time compared to traditional resources.

Cost: Neutral


Payback: Not applicable



The use of these materials in buildings is increasing, but as with new materials

on the market, supply is greatly sensitive to demand. The perception is gener-

ally that many rapidly renewable products have a shorter life-span. More time

in the building industry is required for the experience of these materials to be

complete.

For example, Dow’s wheatboard was discontinued due to light demand that

was below their profitability requirements. It was a LEED-compliant alternative

to Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF), and had the synergistic benefit of being

manufactured without urea-formaldehyde binder, thereby meeting IEQ low-

emitting materials credits. In order for new products to remain on the market,

supply must be stimulated through demand, which is ultimately created by

architects and specifiers.

Consider the following:

• Consider the trade offs between the rapidly renewable characteristics of

product and its emissions levels. Bamboo flooring, for example, uses urea-

formaldehyde-based glues.

• Replace conventional material with rapidly renewable materials; wheat-

board elements in place of MDF for millwork, for example, should be speci-

fied in the construction documents.

• Ask product manufacturers for installation examples to demonstrate per-

formance history.


The cost premium of rapidly renewable materials is often negligible and their

use can be realistically specified.

D. certified Wood

LEED requires Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified wood to be specified

for 50% of wood-based materials and products used in a project. FSC-certifica-

tion ensures that a rigorous, voluntary, independently-verified chain-of-custody

tracking has been undertaken in the production of wood, from woodlot to

end-user. This standard ensures that wood products are not from endangered

species, and that forests are managed under accepted sustainable practices.

Cost Increase: None



Linoleum, or “lino” is a flooring prod-uct made from natural resources in-cluding linseed oil, cork dust, wood flour, tree resins, ground limestone and pigments.


Other standards exist, including the Canadian Standards Association’s (CSA)

Sustainable Forest Management Standard (CSA SFM Z809), and the Sustainable

Forest Initiative (SFI); however, FSC-certification is the only one currently recog-

nised by LEED.


A challenge with specifying and using FSC-certified wood is that each point

along the supply chain must be chain-of-custody certified. In the Lower Main-

land, for example, there are only two millwork shops that hold this certification.

This certification information must be collected as part of the LEED process in

order to prove compliance with the credit.

Although the chain-of-custody certification provides assurances regarding the

source and manufacturing practices, it also presents a challenge to municipal

clients who are required to seek out multiple quotes for services.

Other considerations include:

• Availability of FSC wood-based products can be scarce in British Columbia

and other provinces, as well as in the United States.

• Sourcing of certified wood should occur early in the design process, in order

to allow for sourcing delays. It may take additional time to research sources.

• Certified wood should be specified in the construction documents.


The cost of certified wood is dependent on supply and type of product, but can

range from negligible to 5 or �0% premium.

e. Durable buildings Design solutions

Buildings that have durable components will reduce costs and materials due to

reduced frequency of replacement. Stucco cladding in the GVRD, for example,

needs to be replaced approximately every �8 years, increasing life cycle costs

and material use over other cladding options. 5

Building durability is a new credit, currently found only in the LEED Canada-NC

�.0 rating system: only one project has achieved this credit as of August 2006.

Cost Increase: Neutral



5. Busby Perkins+Will, February 2006. Life Cycle Assessment of Mount Pleasant Civic Centre Mixed-Use Complex.



• The life and replacement cost of components and assemblies must be

determined and filled out in the tables outlined in CSA S478-95 (R200�)

– Guideline on Durability in Buildings. Reliable products with established

lifetimes must be sourced.

• Completion of Tables A�, A2, and A3 as required by the CSA standard can

take considerable time to document, and will require coordination between

the architect, product manufacturers, and possibly a building envelope

consultant.

• Teams should consider involving a building envelope specialist to help

document this credit.

• Since Municipalities have a vested interest in the operations and mainte-

nance costs of their buildings, this credit is likely to take a relatively high

priority on the list of Materials and Resources credits.


Drawing up a Durable Building Plan and completing the tables required by CSA

478(R200�)-Guideline on Durability in Buildings can take time depending on

the scale and building envelope construction. Overall, this cost to a project is

negilible.


• architect: is generally responsible for signing off on the LEED documen-

tation for the Materials and Resources Credits. The architect will need to

allocate sufficient space in the plans to accommodate the facility’s recycling

requirements. This can be easily completed early on in the design process.

The architect also needs to include requirements for a construction waste

management plan in the project specifications.

• building envelope consultant (and/or the architect): is responsible for

drawing up a durable building plan. They will also need to work closely

with the interior designer to include material properties in the specifica-

tions (i.e., recycled content values).

• client: must work with the design team to determine recycling capacity

requirements and appropriate location of recycling receptacles, and may

need to store sourced materials earlier than desired.


MR c2: Construction Waste

Management

Moderate: Waste management

specifications and plan

Collection of weigh bills

and waste diversion

calculations

Project Architect and Contractor

MR c3: Resource Reuse Moderate: Calculations

Supporting information

from salvage company

verifying the cost of the

material

Architect, Structural Engineer,

Contractor

credit

MR p�: Storage and Collection

of Recyclables


Easy: Signed LEED letter

template

Plans showing recycling

bins and collection areas


Architect

• contractor: is responsible for collecting information on material cost and

properties (i.e., recycled content, etc.) and pass it along to the LEED Champi-

on on a regular basis (i.e., once per month). They are responsible to draw up

a Construction Waste Management Plan, and oversee its implementation.

This should be completed prior to the start of construction. The Contractor

is also required to collect weigh bills and is recommended to forward these

once per month to the project’s LEED Champion. They can also help source

salvaged materials.

• leeD champion: is responsible for collecting product information (i.e.,

invoices, weigh bills, etc.) from the contractor to confirm material cost calcu-

lations on a regular basis (i.e., once per month).

• structural engineer: may be required for re-grading of materials if

necessary.


MR c4: Recycled Content Moderate: Calculations


from manufacturer to verify

calculations

Architect, Interior Designer, and

Contractor


MR c6: Rapidly Renewable

Materials

Moderate: Calculations


from manufacturer to verify

claims

Supporting cost informa-

tion from contractor and/or

subtrades


Contractor

MR c7: Certified Wood Moderate: Calculations


that documents chain-of-

custody number

Supporting cost informa-


subtrades

Architect, Contractor

MR c8: Durable Buildings Extensive: Building durability plan

Completion of Tables A�,

A2, A3

Architect, Building Envelope

Consultant, Contractor

6.4 sUmmaRy

solution

Storage and Collection

of Recyclables


Easy

Payback

Not Applicable

Building Reuse Moderate Not Applicable

Construction Waste

Management

Moderate Immediate


None

Savings

None

credit level of Input for leeD Documentation Responsibility for Documentation

MR c4: Recycled Content cont. Moderate: Supporting cost informa-


subtrades


Contractor

Resource Reuse Moderate Not Applicable

Recycled Content Easy Not Applicable

None to moderate

None


6.5 case stUDy

case study: city of Vancouver asphalt Plant and materials Handling facility

Design Team: Busby Perkins+Will, Fast + Epp Partners, Keen Engineering, Reid

Crowther and Partners, Ken King and Associates

Completed: �999

The City of Vancouver’s Asphalt Plant and Materials Handling Facility was

relocated in �999 to the north shore of the Fraser River. Although the project is

small, it is an exciting prototype, demonstrating the economical use of recycled

and salvaged materials in construction.

The new Materials Testing Facility began with a tight budget. The project team

proposed that the project could be built within the budget by utilizing salvaged

and recycled materials. Instead of demolishing warehouses on the site and

building a new facility, the project utilized reclaimed warehouse building mate-

rials. The project team set out to design and build this testing facility, with a goal

that 90% of the new building be recycled and salvaged materials.

In order to achieve the 90% salvaged content, much of the design was not de-

termined until the project team knew what kinds of materials they would have

to work with. The team allowed the available items to dictate the shape of the

building.

The project team came up with a list of desired materials, and set out to see

what was available. In addition to the salvaged materials from the on-site ware-

house the team went to local salvage companies and recycling depots. Many

salvaged and recycled resources were located, including:

Local / Regional

Materials

Easy Not Applicable

Rapidly Renewable

Materials

Moderate Not Applicable

Certified Wood Moderate Not Applicable

Durable Building

None

None

Moderate

None Difficult Not Applicable

solution ease of Implementation Paybackcapital cost Increase



• five 60-by-�0 foot wood trusses,

• �00 glulam beams,

• 30,000 square feet of tongue and groove lumber,

• doors, windows and plywood sheathing, panel boards, furniture, and labora-

tory equipment.

Overall, 75% of the materials used in the project were reclaimed materials.

6.6 ResoURces

salvaged materials:

BuildSmart’s salvaged material resources: www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/

• Salvaged materials set of case studies

• Demolition and Salvage: A Guide for Project Managers and Contractors

• GVRD Old to New Design Guide

construction Waste management Resources:

• GVRD Buildsmart Resources: www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/

• Project Construction Waste Management Master Specification

• Building Deconstruction Master Specification

• Job Site Recycling Guide

• Job Site Recycling Directories:

• Demolition and Salvage Contractors

• Hauling Services

• Local Recycling Depots

• Salvaged Building Materials Supplier

• Job Site Recycling Case Studies

• 3R’s Code of Practice for the Building Industry

• Greenbuilding website and resources: www.greenbuildingsbc.com/new_

buildings/resources_guide/8.0_epr_construction.html

• City of Vancouver Solid Waste Management: www.greenbuildingsbc.com/

new_buildings/resources_guide/8.0_epr_construction.html

operational Waste management:

• 3Rs: GVRD code of practice, �997: www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/pdfs/Codeof-

Practice.pdf

• GVRD Garbage and Recycling links:

www.gvrd.bc.ca/recycling-and-garbage/business-services.htm


• GVRD Garbage and Recycling tip sheet:

www.gvrd.bc.ca/recycling-and-garbage/pdfs/TipSheets-offices.pdf

• BuildSmart Solid Waste

• Ministry of the Environment Municipal Solid Waste:

www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/solid_waste_index.html

• The Recycling Council of BC: www.rcbc.bc.ca/Hotline

Recycling:

GVRD’s Best Practices www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/materials.htm, includes:

• GVRD 3Rs Code of Practice for Businesses

• GVRD Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) Disposal Ban

• Disposal Ban on Old Newspapers and Office Papers

• Best Practices Guide: Material Choices for Sustainable Design -

• Sustainable Building: A Materials Perspective

• GVRD’s Best Practices in Material Choices Guide

www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/pdfs/bestpracticesguidenewcover.pdf

Durable building:

• GVRD Building retrofits: www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/planning.htm

• Canadian Standards Association Standard S478-95 (200�).

• Buildings BC Materials guides, including durability: www.greenbuildingsbc.

com/new_buildings/resources_guide/6.0_epr_materials.htmll

certified Wood:

• Canadian Eco-Lumber Co-op: www.ecolumber.ca/

• Certified Wood: www.certifiedwood.org

• Scientific Certification Systems: www.scscertified.org

6.7 RefeRences:

• ATHENA Sustainable Materials Institute: www.athenasmi.ca

• GVRD. 2006. Recycling & Garbage.:

www.gvrd.bc.ca/recycling-and-garbage/recycling.htm


7.0 InDooR enVIRonmental QUalIty

7.1 IntRoDUctIon

Indoor air and environmental quality concerns transcend all building types.

Indoor air quality is adversely affected by lack of ventilation, off-gassing of

chemicals from building materials, and the growth of moulds and bacteria on

damp building materials.

The simplest and most effective means of achieving optimal indoor air quality is

to greatly reduce or eliminate off-gassing from interior materials, and to ensure

adequate fresh air ventilation through a space. Designing and constructing

municipal buildings that provide acceptable or enhanced indoor air quality is

a process which depends on diligent product specification, ventilation design

(whether mechanical or natural ventilation), and construction management

procedures.


For all types of municipal buildings, designing healthy interiors should be a pri-

ority no matter the program type. This priority should be expanded at the outset

of the project during a goal setting charrette and can be carried throughout by

implementing many or all of the design solutions listed below.

The following design solutions provide a range of easy to more difficult meas-

ures that can be implemented for a wide range of municipal buildings:

• Construction IAQ Management

• Low Emitting Materials

• Thermal Comfort

• Daylight & Views

LEED timing and responsibilities are summarized for these design solutions in

section 7.3.

a. construction IaQ management

Successful achievement of the two available LEED credits relating to Construc-

tion IAQ Management (EQ 3.� & 3.2) is greatly dependent on careful planning

and scheduling before construction. Successful execution of a comprehensive

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan is also vital. General and mechanical



Payback: Immediate

On average, Canadians spend 90% of their time indoors; thus the qual-ity of the indoor environment has a significant influence on occupant health and productivity. Over the past twenty years, there has been growing concern about indoor air quality (IAQ) and the effects of poor IAQ on occupant health and well being. (CaGBC 2004)


contractors are responsible for providing most of the required LEED documenta-

tion so it is imperative that these team members design and follow an effective

IAQ plan. All contractors, crews and subtrades must understand and be aware of

IAQ procedures, and addressing construction-related IAQ issues early in project

planning will help to ensure dedication to IAQ at all required levels.


There are a number of implementation concerns that must be considered when

implementing an effective IAQ Management Plan. These issues are outlined

below:

strategy

Scheduling

Implementation considerations

• Control the sequence of construction activities in order to minimize the ab-

sorption of VOCs by other building materials.

• For example, apply paints, sealants, and other volatile materials and allow them

to dry thoroughly before installing ceiling tiles and carpet.

HVAC Protection • Prevent construction dust from entering the ductwork by isolating the return

(negative pressure) side of the HVAC system from the surrounding environ-

ment during construction / demolition activity.

• Install temporary filters to keep the system clean if it is operated during con-

struction (filters should be replaced prior to completion/occupancy).

Source Control • Use low-emitting paints, finishes, sealants, adhesives, and carpeting (also see

MR credits). Some adhesives and sealants are low-emitting on curing after

installation, but have higher emissions prior to installation.

• For materials supplied by contractors such as cleaning products, specify non-

toxic products (low VOCs) to minimize building contamination.

Pathway Interruption • When pollutants must be generated, prevent or reduce contamination by

installing physical barriers between work areas and non-work areas, or for ex-

ample by ventilating using �00% outside air during application or installation

of VOC emitting materials.

Housekeeping • Clean frequently to eliminate construction dust and debris.

• Do not allow water to accumulate or work areas to become wet or damp in

order to discourage the growth of mould and bacteria.

• Synergies with Materials and Resources: design for spaces to avoid water pool-

ing; specify appropriate flooring materials.



Low-VOC and cleaning materials can be obtained at negligible cost. So long as

management is consistent and implemented early in the construction process,

costs due to implementing the IAQ Management Plan are minimal.

b. low-emitting materials

Specification of low-emitting materials is critical to maintaining a healthy indoor

environment and air quality for building occupants. Volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) typically off-gas from interior finishes and products such as adhesives,

sealants, paintings, coatings, carpet and composite wood products. Common

and well-documented illnesses resulting from exposure to VOCs include sick

building syndrome, building related illnesses, and multiple chemical sensitivities.

Exposure to these chemical compounds and potential for these illnesses can be

minimized by specifying interior products that have low VOC limits (GVRD 2003).

In addition to alleviating the health concerns associated with low-emitting ma-

terials, these products can contribute to the overall energy efficiency of a build-

ing. With low VOC finishes, the outdoor air volume required to achieve a given

indoor air quality can be reduced with significant energy and cooling plant cost

savings.


When working on a LEED project is important to follow a number of steps to en-

sure that the right products are specified and used during construction by the

contractor and sub-trades. Failure to specify or apply the correct product can

jeopardize more than one LEED point. For example, if high emitting adhesives

are used, the project may fail the indoor air quality testing procedures conduct-

ed at the end of construction prior to occupancy. Additional considerations are

outlined below:

Housekeeping Cont. • Address spills immediately.

• Hazardous materials should be treated with extra care.

Flush-out • Conduct the building flush-out with new filtration media and �00% outside air

after construction ends and prior to occupancy.

• Ensure the specified total air volume is supplied (4,300 m3 outdoor per m2 of

floor area).

• Carefully examine the project schedule to ensure flush-out procedures will fit

within the schedule.


Ease of Implementation: Easy to

moderate

Payback: Immediate


Product

Adhesives and Sealants

Implementation considerations

• Ensure that the products meet the VOC levels outlined in the most current

version of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule

#��68, October 2003 Amended January 7, 2005.

• Consider all adhesives and sealants used within the building envelope; low-

emitting products are often overlooked for glazing and plumbing sealants.

Paints and Coatings • Attention to function is important: for example, choosing the apropriate paint

for a space containing a swimming pool is more critical due to the corrosive

nature of a chlorinated environment.

• Review the manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheet for VOC limits which

must be expressed in grams per litre for LEED requirements.

• Most major brands offer low-emitting alternatives as part of product line.

• Ensure that the products meet the VOC levels outlined in the most current ver-

sion of:

• Green Seal Standard GS-��

• Green Seal Standard GC-03

• SCAQMD Rule #��3, October 2003 Amended July 9, 2004

Carpet • Specify carpet tile rather than broadloom carpet, primarily for ease of ongoing

maintenance. Carpet tile is straightforward to replace, providing building own-

ers with a high degree of flexibility if damage occurs in an isolated area.

• Consider the VOC values associated with adhesives required to secure carpet

tiles.

• Consider the percentage of recycled content, place of manufacture and rapidly

renewable material content.

Composite Wood • Sourcing composite wood products without any added urea-formaldehyde is

more of a challenge than the requirements of other IEQ product categories.

• Common alternatives to urea-formaldehyde binders include:

• Phenol formaldehyde (also known as phenolic);

• MDI (polymeric diisocyanate binder, which can be sued in straw fibre-

board, some MDF); and

• Parafin wax (can be used in cellulosic fibreboard).


General implementation tips:

• Ensure project teams reference the latest version (most recently amended)

of the standard, since VOC limits may change as standards become more or

less stringent over time;

• Keep a running list of adhesives, sealants, paintings, coatings, carpet and

composite wood products specified in the project and their relevant VOC

limits. This tracking mechanism (see table below) will help streamline the

LEED documentation process at the end of the project;

• Ensure there is clear communication at the beginning of the project be-

tween the architect and interior designer regarding finishes and VOC limits;

• Educate the contractor and sub-trades on the importance of using the right

product; and

• Seek feedback from operations and maintenance staff on experience using

various interior finishes and low-emitting materials. Include these individu-

als early on in the design process.

Product

Credit c4.� Adhesives and Sealants:

Safecoat 3 in � Adhesive

(Cork Wall and Floor Adhesive)

Credit c4.2 Paints and Coatings:

Benjamin Moore EcoSpec 223

�00% Acrylic Latex Interior Eggshell

Vocs

97 g/l

�44 g/l

Voc limits

�00 g/l

�50 g/l

Reference standard

SCAQMD Rule #��68

Green Seal GS-�� and GC-03

SCAQMD Rule #��3

msDs sheet

yes

yes


• Low-emitting adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings are readily available in the

marketplace at no additional capital cost.

• As alternative binders to formaldehyde for composite wood products

become available, the cost premium for urea-formaldehyde wood products

will be reduced.

Sample Low-Emitting Materials Tracking List:


c. thermal comfort

Good thermal comfort is something that most building owners will assume

will be provided as part of a quality building, but it is also something that many

post-occupancy evaluations are showing cannot be taken for granted.

Thermal comfort is not only related to air temperature. This is because an indi-

vidual’s perception of temperature is based on a combination of factors, and as a

result, thermal comfort is derived from a number of environmental parameters,

including the following:

• Air temperature;

• Mean Radiant Temperature;

• Air Velocity within the space;

• Relative Humidity;

• The level of activity of the occupants; and

• The type of clothing worn by the occupants.

Uncomfortable occupants are less likely to be happy and thus less productive

in their working environment, ultimately affecting an organization’s financial

bottom line.

LEED and good practice recognizes the ASHRAE thermal comfort Standard

55-2004, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, as being

the way to define acceptable comfort conditions. Figure 3 shows acceptable

comfort conditions.

Thermal comfort conditions are no longer defined at a single point. While it

used to be that a single air temperature and humidity ratio were held to be “the”

comfort point for all, it is now recognized that seasonal variation, levels of cloth-

ing and radiant impacts all come into play. While this seems that it would make

it more difficult to design a building with good comfort, in fact, it can make it

easier.

In order to make the space comfortable, the key aspects to remember are to:

• give people access to control points including operable windows where

appropriate;

• vary the temperature seasonally to respond to how people are dressed;

• prevent drafts; and

• pay attention to how thermal mass (such as large areas of concrete) is used

in the building.



Payback: Immediate


Figure 3: Acceptable range of operative temperature and humidity for spaces that meet the criteria specified in ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, Section 5.2.�.�.

Source: ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, Ther-mal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy



It is important for the whole design team to work together to consider how

thermal comfort is impacted by the design choices made in the building.

There are many items which can influence thermal comfort within the internal

space. These include:

• Architectural shading;

• Structural concrete;

• Lighting systems; and

• As well as mechanical choices such as types of air-conditioning systems.

It is interesting to note that a well-designed naturally ventilated space can result

in significantly more comfortable conditions than a mechanically conditioned

space (Brager, DeDear 2002). However, natural ventilation is an option that can

save a lot of energy but should be used only with careful analysis to ensure that

the resultant space conditions will be comfortable.


Cost issues can vary depending on the course of action taken to maximize oc-

cupancy thermal comfort. Items such as increasing glazing performance can

raise the initial cost of the glass; however, savings may be realized through the

reduction of the plant sizing and mechanical systems due to less solar load be-

ing introduced into the space. Cost implications must be made on a case by case

basis, although it is not unreasonable for this item to be cost neutral.

D. light Quality and Views

There are a significant number of studies which have demonstrated the benefits

to occupant health and well-being with access to natural light. Natural light not

only has an impact on health, but also improves the amenity of the space, and

reduces the lighting energy and heat associated with the reduced lighting load

with a good level of natural light.

LEED credit IEQ c8.2 can be earned by providing a direct line of sight to vision

glazing for building occupants in 90% of all regularly occupied spaces. Board-

room and group work spaces are considered in the calculations for regularly

occupied spaces.



Payback: Immediate



Daylight in a space can be influenced by a number of different factors, including

the following:

• Building orientation;

• Glazing selection in particular the visual light transmission;

• The extent of the amount of glazing;

• External solar control strategies; and

• Maximized perimeter spaces through the use of atria and courtyards.

A good benchmark to follow is to provide at least a 2% daylighting factor to

75% of regularly occupied spaces. This will also achieve the requirements for one

LEED credit (IEQ c8.�). Computer simulation technologies are frequently used by

design teams to determine the daylighting potential of a building design.

By coordinating electrical lighting systems and shading strategies with available

daylight, the potential to maximize energy savings is improved.

• Consider providing tenants with information that demonstrates the ideal

daylighting goals and outline the techniques and practices required to

achieve them.

• Provide calculated expected savings in energy and cost by following these

best practices.

See Appendix E: GVRD’s Technology Fact Sheets for more detailed information

on daylighting strategies.

Cost Considerations

Increasing natural light within a space can often lead to increased levels of solar

load within the space and potentially increase the amount of mechanical cool-

ing required to offset this additional heat within the space. Care must be taken

to take both of these elements into account, striking a balance between cost

and indoor amenity.


• architect: is responsible for sourcing out appropriate products and that

they are correctly specified. During construction, the architect or interior

designer should review alternative products if proposed by the contrac-

tor. The architect also selects building envelope materials consistent with a

thermally comfortable space. The architectural team should complete the


daylight and view calculations early on in the design development phase to

confirm the project’s ability to achieve the credit. Depending on the project

size and program complexities, it can take a couple of days to a week to

complete these calculations, and may require teams to perform a daylight

simulation model to verify the daylight factor.

• contractor: is responsible for drawing up an IAQ Management Plan based

on LEED requirements and information from Mechanical consultants. This

Plan should be in place prior to installation of any ductwork on site, and ad-

dresses air quality concerns through construction to installation of drywall.

Further, the contractor should disseminate the plan and may need to edu-

cate the sub-trades on procedures. The contractor also needs to ensure that

non-compliant products are not brought and used on-site. This will require

some monitoring of the sub-trades; the contractor will also be responsible

for collecting MSDS sheets from the sub-trades. Generally, the contractor

should ensure that the design philosophy is transferred from the design

into the final construction of the building.

• Design team: works together to provide highly naturally lit, energy con-

servative spaces.

• Interior Designer: is responsible for specifying low-emitting products

where ever possible.

• leeD champion: is responsible for collecting, on a regular basis (e.g., once

a month), product literature, MSDS sheets from the contractor, architect and

interior designer.

• mechanical engineer: is responsible for providing the contractor with rel-

evant information on HVACR system specifications, and to select systems that

promote enhanced thermal comfort and document elements for LEED credits.

• specification writer: is responsible for ensuring that VOC requirements are

embedded in specifications.

IEQ c3.2: Construction IAQ Management

- Testing Before Occupancy

Moderate: Depends on Option Chosen Mechanical Contractor / Engineer

credit

IEQ c3.�: Construction IAQ Management


Moderate: Construction IAQ Plan

Photographs


General / Mechanical Contractors



IEQ c4.2: Paints and Coatings Extensive: Careful specification

Listing of products

Collection of product litera-

ture including MSDS sheets

Interior Designer, Project

Architect, and Contractor

IEQ c4.3: Carpet Moderate: Careful specification

Listing of products





IEQ c4.4: Composite Wood Products Extensive: Typically requires detailed

research of alternative

products

Careful specification

Listing of products





Mechanical EngineerIEQ c7.�: Thermal Comfort - Compliance Moderate: Signed Letter Template

Calculations of operative

temperatures radiantly

conditions spaces

Mechanical EngineerIEQ c7.2: Thermal Comfort - Monitoring Moderate: Signed Letter Template

Confirmation of Controls

ArchitectIEQ c8.�: Daylight and Views

- Daylight 75%

Moderate: Narrative

Calculations


simulation

ArchitectIEQ c8.�: Daylight and Views

- Daylight 90%

Moderate: Narrative

Calculations


simulation

credit

IEQ c4.�: Adhesives and Sealants


Moderate: Careful specification

Listing of products




Interior Designer, Project Architect,

and Contractor


7.5 case stUDy

case study: semiahmoo library & RcmP facility

Design Team: Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership, Darrell J. Epp Architect Ltd.,

Weiler Smith Bowers Consulting Engineers, VEL Engineering, Flagel

Lewandowski Ltd, Perry and Associates, Graham Harmsworth Lai & Associates

Ltd., Intercad Services Ltd., Bunt and Associates.

Completed: 2003

The high standard of indoor air quality and thermal comfort achieved on this

project is particularly noteworthy. The building’s design, especially the glazed

atrium along the front (east) façade and the high ceiling on the second sto-

rey, works with the displacement ventilation system to provide very effective

ventilation throughout the structure. Security requirements precluded windows

that opened, yet the overall distribution of fresh air and the comfort level are

excellent — and the system is exceedingly quiet, an important factor for both

the RCMP and the library functions. As an additional measure to ensure consist-

ently good air quality, the client chose to invest in a Carbon Dioxide monitoring

system for this facility.

In the specification of materials for construction of the building, preference

was given to low-emitting materials throughout, including adhesives, sealants,

paints, and carpets. Behind the scenes, solid wood blocking (instead of plywood)

was used to anchor all units that required wall mounting, a measure suggested

by the contractors on site.

7.4 sUmmaRy

solution

Construction IAQ

Thermal Comfort

Adhesives and Sealants

Paints and Coatings

Carpet

Composite Wood Products

Light Quality and Views


Easy

Moderate

Easy

Easy

Easy

Moderate

Moderate

Payback

Immediate

Immediate

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Immediate


None

None

None

None

None

Moderate

None-moderate

Photo: Bob Matheson


7.6 ResoURces

GVRD. 2003. Sustainable Building Design: Principles, Practices & Systems Guide.

GVRD.

GVRD. 2002. LEED Implementation Guide for Municipal Green Buildings. GVRD.

GVRD Air Quality: www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/voc.htm

Green Seal Program: www.greenseal.org

Master Paint Institute: www.paintinfo.com/mpi/

South Coast Air Quality Management District: www.aqmd.gov

GreenGuard Environmental Institute: www.greenguard.org

Scientific Certification Systems: www.scientificcertificationsystems.org

Resource Venture ‘Construction IAQ Management for LEED 2.� in Seattle’:

www.resourceventure.org/rv/publications/building/LEED-IAQ.pdf

7.7 RefeRence

CaGBC. 2004. LEED Green Building Rating System: www.cagbc.org

de Dear, R.J., and G.S. Brager, 2002. Thermal Comfort in Naturally Ventilated Build-

ings: Revisions to ASHRAE Standard 55. Energy and Buildings 34, p.549-56�.



8.0 tRansPoRtatIon cHoIces

8.1 IntRoDUctIon

As the most significant contributor to GHG emissions in the region, building

design must consider transportation as a key site consideration in order to posi-

tively impact environmental priorities. Available transportation infrastructure

determines the transportation choices of residents and businesses, affecting the

level and type of transportation energy consumed and the number and length

of vehicle trips.


LEED has several credits available under Sustainable Sites related to transporta-

tion choices. In considering the alternatives to single occupancy vehicles (SOVs),

a fairly major reduction in energy and use of fossil fuels can be realized. Most

credits available require relatively little investment in terms of capital cost, in ad-

dition to a relatively simple documentation process.

Since urban density is directly related to energy consumption (when density in-

creases, efficiencies increase), site selection is one of the easiest ways to accom-

modate transportation choices and encourage energy efficiency.


Designing a comprehensive workplace trip reduction program can prove valu-

able in reducing energy consumption as a result of transportation, in addition to

earning several LEED credits. For example, a workplace might:

• choose to locate within close proximity to several types of transit services;

• provide designated parking stalls to car/vanpools;

• provide alternatively-fuelled fleet cars for staff to use during the day;

• encourage cycling by providing bike racks and shower facilities. City au-

thorities may agree to install racks upon request if they do not already exist

within the vicinity. In some cases, municipal requirements for bicycle stor-

age exceed the LEED requirement;

• provide a guaranteed ride home for employees that work late; and

• introduce variable work hours and allow telecommuting.

Transportation of all types accounts for more than 25% of the world’s commercial energy use, and motor vehicles account for nearly 80% of that. (World Resource Institute �998 and BEST 2006)


Ease of Implementation: Varies

Payback: Immediate



There is no significant capital cost associated with providing bicycle storage,

changing rooms or developing car/van pool programs. Projects can actually

incur a cost savings if they reduce their parking requirements for the project.

Providing facilities and incentives for alternatively-fuelled vehicles can be more

cost-intensive and possibly less feasible for a larger number of projects. How-

ever, municipalities may wish to consider this credit given the potential for local

governments to act as leaders for sustainable alternatives.


The following professionals play a role in implementing alternative transporta-

tion solutions and documenting them for the LEED application:

• client: must provide Full Time Equivalency occupant numbers for the

design team to complete the LEED calculations required to determine the

number of showers, bicycles racks, van/carpool spaces and spaces dedi-

cated for alternative fuel vehicles.

• architect: is responsible for incorporating bicycle storage, showers, and

van/carpool requirements into the design. Typically the architect will sign

off on the documentation required for these credits.

• electrical/mechanical: is responsible for maintaining their design intent

with respect to alternative fuel refuelling stations.


credit

SS c4.�: Public Transportation Access

level of input for leeD Documentation

Easy: Letter Template Signed

Drawing showing local bus

or mass transit routes and

distance to the project

Responsibility for documentation

Architect, Client

SS c4.2: Bicycle Storage and Changing

Rooms


Drawings indicating loca-

tion of bicycle storage and

changing facilities

Architect


SS c4.3: Hybrid and Alternative

Fuel Vehicles


Lease documentation

Calculations

Drawings and Parking Plan

Architect, Client

SS c4.4: Parking Capacity Easy: Letter Template Signed

Narrative

Drawings and Parking Plan

Architect, Client

8.4 sUmmaRy

solution

Transportation Choices


Easy - difficult

Payback

Immediate


Cost savings - moder-

ate cost increase


8.5 case stUDy

case study: Vancouver Island technology Park transportation study

Design Team: Bunting Coady Architects, Idealink Architecture, Boulevard

Transportation Group

Completed: 2002

In 2002, Boulevard Transportation Group conducted a Sustainable Transporta-

tion Plan for the newly created Vancouver Island Tech Park in Saanich. The Park’s

mission was to create a national showcase for sustainable high tech develop-

ment in a campus-like setting and to model environmentally friendly building

and land management principles such as “green” building design and sustain-

able transportation systems. The masterplan was intended to be a living docu-

ment, a malleable tool that could accommodate changes and alterations so as

to reflect evolving site conditions.

Study objectives involved the implementation of an efficient and convenient

sustainable transportation system at the Vancouver Island Technology Park;

demonstrating and displaying sustainable transportation technologies; and

minimizing the number of vehicles traveling to the site, thus reducing parking

needs and greenhouse gas emission levels; and minimizing the risk, frequency

and severity of traffic accidents through incorporating safety conscious plan-

ning. Meeting these goals consisted of three stages including:

Stage I - A Preliminary Evaluation Plan which evaluates existing transportation

trends, patterns, infrastructure, initiatives, tools and practices; and analyses, inter-

prets and provides recommendations for implementation of Stage II

Stage II – A Sustainable Transportation Masterplan for the VITP and surrounding

area

Stage III – Implementation of a sustainable transportation system using innova-

tive sustainable transportation technologies.

During the early stages of development of the Park, the District of Saanich

granted it the opportunity to reduce parking requirements in exchange for trip

reduction initiatives and measures designed to manage transportation demand,

the goal being to reduce congestion and emissions, traffic impacts and asphalt.

Extensive best practices research were collected, as well as new research into

Photo: Sandy Beaman


how emerging advanced technology applications could be applied to trip-re-

duction strategies. At present, Park management’s commitment to environmen-

tal design is illustrated in the inclusion of sustainable transportation features

such as grass and gravel paved parking lots, bike facilities, showers and lockers,

electric vehicle recharging stations, and transit facilities.

Throughout the course of this study, it became apparent that a sustainable

transportation system at the VITP site could serve as a regional catalyst for

bringing all sorts of groups, agencies, institutions, interests, businesses and gov-

ernments together under a common set of goals and objectives. The project has,

and will continue, to benefit from the efforts of all the partners in this project to

put in place the systems and infrastructure necessary that will not only facilitate

the effective implementation of VITP’s plan, but also will allow for a regional

multi-mode transportation network.

8.6 ResoURces

Better Environmentally Sound Transportation (BEST): www.best.bc.ca

BEST provides a collection of information on local transportation alternatives

and commuting options. Support for commuting programs such as car/van-

pools, cycling information, case studies for business, the Cooperative Auto

Network, pedestrian safety and more can be accessed through BEST.

Ministry of Transportation Cycling Infrastructure Partnership Program

www.th.gov.bc.ca/popular-topics/cycling/cipp.htm

The CIPP is a cost-shared program where the Government of British Columbia

will partner with local governments in the construction of new transportation

cycling infrastructure. Up to $250,000 of funding per project is available.

8.7 RefeRences

World Resources Institute. �998-�999 World Resources: A Guide to the Global

Environment. New York: Oxford University Press, �998.)

GVRD Desin Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings76


9.0 InnoVatIon anD DesIgn

9.1 IntRoDUctIon

Often sustainable design stops once a building is completed. Municipalities,

however, are well-positioned to extend this design philosophy into the opera-

tions of their facilities by implementing policies and best practices that apply

to the operations and maintenance of the buildings. It is beneficial if these

operational policies are developed as part of a broader sustainability or green

building policies.

LEED also provides the opportunity to go beyond what has been presented

in the previous sections of this document and to demonstrate leadership by

exceeding any of the proposed standards or by implementing strategies not

identified in the LEED system.

Two major opportunities are readily available to municipalities that fulfil this

requirement, and include developing:

• Green Operating Programs (i.e., purchasing and housekeeping policies and

products) .

• Green Education Plan (i.e., education of both building occupants and

visitors).


Two operational policies that have direct application for municipalities include a

green housekeeping and education plan. These two programs are discussed in

greater depth below.

a. green operations Program

Once a high performance and/or LEED project is completed, proper mainte-

nance and operation of a building are critical for maintaining good indoor air

quality and the health of building occupants over the life of the building. Ad-

dressing health concerns associated with cleaning and maintaining buildings

can be accomplished through the development of policies for green mainte-

nance procedures. Several municipalities within the GVRD have already adopted

policies to address this issue, including the City of Richmond and Vancouver.

For the average commercial build-ing in the U.S., more than half as much money is spent per year on cleaning as on energy. In energy-ef-ficient green buildings, significantly more money may be spent on cleaning than on energy. Cleaning compounds and compounds used for stripping and refinishing floors can be a building’s largest source of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. (Environmental Building News 2005)



Payback: Immediate


The LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) program outlines a number of best

practices for maintaining a healthy work environment during the operation of a

building.


Steps for developing a Green Housekeeping and Operations Program:

�. Identify materials used in day-to-day operations and determine their poten-

tial impact on the human effect and the environment;

2. Identify alternatives to commonly used products;

3. Develop an organization policy that specifies the use of environmentally

preferable cleaning products. Green Seal, Environmental Choice Program,

and Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention are good references for devel-

oping such organization policies;

4. Inventory office consumable products and consider environmentally prefer-

able products for office consumables (i.e., printing paper, toner, janitorial

paper products);

5. Examine landscape and pest management products and seek out alterna-

tives;

6. Identify a strong champion within the municipality who will spearhead this

program;

7. Seek feedback from maintenance, operations and procurement staff prior to

full scale implementation;

8. Pilot products before full scale implementation; and

9. Educate building occupants on alternative and program.

Cost Considerations :

The cost for environmentally preferable cleaning products has decreased along

with the increase in their demand, but there remains a slight premium for the

products. These products are readily available in the market place.

b. green education Plan

When occupants move into the building, they are typically not informed about

building systems, technologies, or design strategies. Yet these strategies all work

together to conserve energy and water, enhance the indoor environmental

quality, and also offer significant operations and maintenance savings on an


Ease of Implementation: Varies

Payback: Immediate


annual basis — meanwhile, often dependent on building occupants and/or

maintenance staff to be fully realised. Developing and implementing an educa-

tion plan can be the catalyst for informing building occupants and visitors of

these features.

Educating building occupants and visitors can fulfil three important goals:

• Ensuring that building occupants and visitors understand the impact their

behaviour can have on the building performance;

• Contributing to the dissemination of knowledge about green buildings and

its benefits; and

• Positioning the municipality as a leader and a model for the community.


The following measures can be implemented as part of educating the building

occupants:

• Develop a signage program throughout the building or brochure commu-

nicating design features and their benefits;

• Host regular tours of the building; and/or

• Create a virtual “real-time” display communicating for example the build-

ing’s total or daily energy and water use.


There are a few minor “soft” costs associated with developing an education plan:

• Time spent preparing the materials either by a marketing or graphics team;

and

• Time for an individual to conduct building tours.

c. other Innovative solutions

The LEED Green Building Rating System recognizes projects that implement in-

novative design measures that:

�. greatly exceed any of the LEED performance standards;

2. implement strategies that are not identified by the LEED system (i.e., green

housekeeping or education program); and/or

3. include a LEED Accredited Professional on the design team.


The LEED Canada Reference Guide outlines the detailed summary of what is

required for an innovation point.


Implementation issues will vary for different innovative solutions, however the

following tips apply:

• Raise innovative solutions early on in the design process in order to have

enough time to explore their economic feasibility, and any other social or

environmental implications;

• Explore external funding for measures; and

• Engage academic researchers to explore ideas for innovative building re-

search opportunities that could be included in the project.


Cost issues will vary from project to project, depending entirely on the scope of

the innovation.


Early on in the design process, it is necessary to identify who is responsible for

documenting the innovative measure.

• the client: is typically responsible for coordinating this initiative internally

with janitorial, maintenance and operations staff or with external contrac-

tors.

• the client and architect together: typically look after creating an educa-

tion plan. Proof that this plan is under development must be submitted as

part of the LEED project application.

• marketing or graphic teams will also play an important role in crafting the

graphic images for the education plan.


9.5 case stUDIes

case study: city of Richmond green Procurement Policy and Plan

The City of Richmond is an early adopter of Green Operations policies and

formalized its Green Procurement Policy with a Green Purchasing Guide which

provides specific purchasing guidance for the following areas:

• general building maintenance;

• janitorial products;

• vehicles and maintenances;

• furniture and office systems;

• office equipment and related services;

• office supplies;

• lighting and lighting systems;

• construction, renovation, demolition;

• parks, recreation amenities and landscaping; and,

• special programs.

credit

ID c�.�-�.4: Innovative Design

Measures


Depends on Innovation strategies

Develop rationale for innovative

measure and provide supporting

evidence


Consultant will vary depending on

design measure

ID c�.2: LEED Accredited

Professional

Minimal: Signed Letter Template

Copy of LEED Accreditation

Certificate

Team member with LEED AP

designation


9.4 sUmmaRy

solution

Green Operations (House-

keeping Plan)


Moderate

Payback

Immediate


Moderate

Green Education Plan Moderate Moderate Immediate

Minimal to Extensive:


case study: city of seattle - seattle Justice centre and education Program

Design Team: NBBJ Architects, Hoffman Construction Co., Skilling Ward Mag-

nusson Barkshire, CDI Engineers, Abacus, Gustafson Partners Ltd., SvR Design

Company

Completed: 2002

The Seattle Justice Center was the first building completed within the City of

Seattle’s Sustainable Building Program. A resolution passed in 2000 required all

City buildings over 464 s.m. to conform to a LEED silver rating. Currently there

are �6 LEED projects that fall within the policy.

The Seattle Justice Center was also one of the first LEED registered buildings

in Seattle, and consequently stands as a beacon for learning about sustainable

building within Seattle. An education program for the sustainable building

program, and for the Seattle Justice Center in particular includes the publishing

of case studies and the provision of regular tours.

The Seattle Justice Center has now been published in three different formats.

The Sustainable building program official format is a partnership with the Cas-

cadia Region Green Building Council.

Additionally two other case study formats have been developed. The DOE High

Performance Buildings case study, which includes publication on the Environ-

mental Building News web-site, is now on-line. Better Bricks – a regional initia-

tive by the North West Energy Efficiency Alliance – have also published their

own case study on the building on their web-site.

Tours are scheduled monthly, often occurring more frequently as demand

requires. The City’s Green Building Team has trained 5 docents to perform the

tours on a rotating schedule. Other tour leaders have included the design team.

Tours have performed for a wide range of visitors ranging from local profession-

als to visiting state and international delegations.

Photo: Erik Stuhaug


case study: city of White Rock - operations centre - leeD-nc gold

Design Team: Busby Perkins+Will, Fast + Epp, Flagel Lewandowski, Keen Engi-

neering, KDS Construction, Wendy Grandin, Pacific Environmental Consulting

Services

Completed: 2003

In July 2003, the City of White Rock was awarded LEED Gold certification of

its new Operations Building, making it only the second building in Canada to

achieve this standing and the first for new construction. The design locates the

new facility over an abandoned sanitary treatment plant, using existing storage

tanks as the building’s foundations. The building developed into two separate

pavilions: a two-storey component on the north end, housing departmental

elements which are only periodically used (field crew facilities, change rooms,

meeting and lunch rooms), and a one-storey building on the south end, housing

the office component of the department.

Water conservation was a major design criteria for the City’s new Operations

building. A number of strategies were implemented in an effort to reduce the

potable water use on the site. In terms of the demand for water within the build-

ing, several strategies were implemented:

• Highly efficient, water conserving plumbing fixtures were used;

• Dual flush toilets and waterless urinals were installed throughout the

complex; and

• Stormwater is used to service all toilets for sewage conveyance.

The total amount of potable water used inside the building is 65,2�7

gal/year, 36.5% less than the reference case.

In addition, one of the decommissioned sewage treatment tanks was excavated

and upgraded to become a holding tank for stormwater that was diverted from

streets up the hill north of the building site. This water reduced the demand on

potable water for the following:

• Sewage conveyance;

• Washing the City’s fleet of vehicles; and

• Irrigation of landscape.


Photo: Stantec


No potable water is used for outdoor applications. Water for the hosebibb

(6,275gal/year), washing of operations vehicles (�50,00 gal/year), and street

cleaning vehicles (260,000 gal/year) is supplied �00% by captured stormwater.

Overall, the project reduced its potable water consumption by 87.2% or by

444,448 gallons per year.

As a result of these conservation measures, the project greatly exceeded the

LEED thresholds for water use reduction, achieving all 5 Water Efficiency credits

and an innovation credit.

9.6 ResoURces:

City of Richmond Green Purchasing Guide:

www.richmond.ca/services/environment/policies/purchasing.htm

Environment Choice Program: www.environmentalchoice.ca

Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention: www.c2p2online.com

Green Seal Organization: www.greenseal.org

LEED for Existing Building, US Green Building Council: www.usgbc.org

Design for Cleanability. Environmental Building News. September 2005.

Environmental Protection Agency Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines

www.epa.gov/cpg

Sustainable Purchase Network: www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/programs/documents/

SPN2006/SPN_FactSheet.pdf

Environmental Building News. 2005. Design for Cleanability. Vol. �4, No. 9.


10.0 aPPenDIces










v. Daylighting

00

0P

ossi

ble

Poi

nts

70

00

0P

ossi

ble

Poi

nts

14

00

0P

ossi

ble

Poi

nts

14

Y?

NY

?N

YP

rere

q 1

Y

0lortno

C n oit atn emide

S & n ois or

EP

rere

q 1

0

Cre

dit

1

1C

redi

t 1

.11

Cre

dit

2

1C

redi

t 1

.21

Cre

dit

3

1C

redi

t 1

.31

Cre

dit

4.1

1C

redi

t 2

.11

Cre

dit

4.2

1C

redi

t 2

.21

Cre

dit

4.3

1C

redi

t 3

.11

Cre

dit

4.4

1C

redi

t 3

.21

Cre

dit

5.1

1C

redi

t 4

.11

Cre

dit

5.2

1C

redi

t 4

.21

Cre

dit

6.1

1C

redi

t 5

.11

Cre

dit

6.2

1C

redi

t 5

.21

Cre

dit

7.1

1C

redi

t 6

1

Cre

dit

7.2

1C

redi

t 7

1

Cre

dit

8

1C

redi

t 8

1

00

0P

ossi

ble

Poi

nts

15

00

0P

ossi

ble

Poi

nts

5Y

?N

Y?

NY

Pre

req

1

0C

redi

t 1

.11

YP

rere

q 2

0

Cre

dit

1.2

1C

redi

t 1

1

Cre

dit

2

1C

redi

t 2

1

Cre

dit

3.1

1C

redi

t 3

.11

Cre

dit

3.2

1C

redi

t 3

.21

Cre

dit

4.1

1

00

0P

ossi

ble

Poi

nts

17

Cre

dit

4.2

1Y

?N

Cre

dit

4.3

1

YP

rere

q 1

0

Cre

dit

4.4

1

YP

rere

q 2

0

Cre

dit

5

1

YP

rere

q 3

0

Cre

dit

6.1

1C

redi

t 1

.11

Cre

dit

6.2

1C

redi

t 1

.21

Cre

dit

7.1

1C

redi

t 1

.31

Cre

dit

7.2

1C

redi

t 1

.41

Cre

dit

8.1

1C

redi

t 1

.51

Cre

dit

8.2

1C

redi

t 1

.6O

ptim

ize

Ene

rgy

Per

form

ance

, N

ew: 4

7%

MN

EC

B, 4

0%

AS

HR

AE

1C

redi

t 1

.7O

ptim

ize

Ene

rgy

Per

form

ance

, N

ew: 5

1%

MN

EC

B, 4

5%

AS

HR

AE

10

00

Pos

sibl

e P

oint

s5

Cre

dit

1.8

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce, N

ew: 5

5%

MN

EC

B, 5

0%

AS

HR

AE

1Y

?N

Cre

dit

1.9

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce, N

ew: 6

0%

MN

EC

B, 5

5%

AS

HR

AE

1C

redi

t 1

.11

Cre

dit

1.1

0O

ptim

ize

Ene

rgy

Per

form

ance

, N

ew: 6

4%

MN

EC

B, 6

0%

AS

HR

AE

1C

redi

t 1

.21

Cre

dit

2.1

Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y, 5

%1

Cre

dit

1.3

1C

redi

t 2

.2R

enew

able

Ene

rgy,

10

%1

Cre

dit

1.4

1C

redi

t 2

.3R

enew

able

Ene

rgy,

20

%1

Cre

dit

2

1C

redi

t 3

1

gnino issim

m oC eci tc ar

P ts eB

Cre

dit

4

1noitc et or

P enozO

Cre

dit

5

1noitaci fir eV

& tnem erus a e

MC

redi

t 6

1

Tota

l Pro

ject

Sco

re L

EE

D C

anad

a v1

.0

Cer

tifi

ed 2

6-3

2

Silv

er 3

3-3

8

Gol

d 3

9 -

51

P

lati

num

52

+

ec ruoseR

& slairetaM

set iS elb an ia tsu

Ss

Sto

rage

& C

olle

ctio

n of

Rec

ycla

bles

Sit

e S

elec

tion

Bui

ldin

g R

euse

, M

aint

ain

75

% o

f E

xist

ing

Wal

ls, Fl

oors

and

Roo

f

Dev

elop

men

t D

ensi

tyB

uild

ing

Reu

se, M

aint

ain

95

% o

f E

xist

ing

Wal

ls, Fl

oors

and

Roo

f

Red

evel

opm

ent

of C

onta

min

ated

Sit

esB

uild

ing

Reu

se, M

aint

ain

50

% o

f In

teri

or N

on-S

truc

tura

l Ele

men

ts

Alt

erna

tive

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

, P

ublic

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Acc

ess

Con

stru

ctio

n W

aste

Man

agem

ent,

Div

ert

50

%

Alt

erna

tive

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

, B

icyc

le S

tora

ge &

Cha

ngin

g R

oom

sC

onst

ruct

ion

Was

te M

anag

emen

t, D

iver

t 7

5%

Alt

erna

tive

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

, H

ybri

d an

d A

lter

nati

ve F

uel V

ehic

les

Res

ourc

e R

euse

, S

peci

fy 5

%

Alt

erna

tive

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

, P

arki

ng C

apac

ity

Res

ourc

e R

euse

, S

peci

fy 1

0%

Red

uced

Sit

e D

istu

rban

ce, P

rote

ct o

r R

esto

re O

pen

Spa

ceR

ecyc

led

Con

tent

, S

peci

fy 7

.5%

(pc

+ 1

/2 p

i)

Red

uced

Sit

e D

istu

rban

ce, D

evel

opm

ent

Foot

prin

tR

ecyc

led

Con

tent

, S

peci

fy 1

5%

(pc

+ 1

/2 p

i)

Sto

rmw

ater

Man

agem

ent,

Rat

e an

d Q

uant

ity

Reg

iona

l Mat

eria

ls, 1

0%

Ext

ract

ed a

nd M

anuf

actu

red

Reg

iona

lly

Sto

rmw

ater

Man

agem

ent,

Tre

atm

ent

Reg

iona

l Mat

eria

ls, 2

0%

Ext

ract

ed a

nd M

anuf

actu

red

Reg

iona

lly

Hea

t Is

land

s E

ffec

t, N

on-R

oof

Rap

idly

Ren

ewab

le M

ater

ials

, S

peci

fy 5

%

Hea

t Is

land

s ef

fect

, R

oof

Cer

tifi

ed W

ood

Ligh

t P

ollu

tion

Red

ucti

on

Indo

or E

nvir

onm

enta

l Qua

lity

Wat

er E

ffic

ienc

yM

inim

um I

AQ

Per

form

ance

Dur

able

Bui

ldin

g

Wat

er E

ffic

ient

Lan

dsca

ping

, R

educ

e by

50

%E

nvir

onm

enta

l Tob

acco

Sm

oke

(ETS

)C

ontr

ol

Wat

er E

ffic

ient

Lan

dsca

ping

, N

o P

otab

le U

se o

r N

o Ir

riga

tion

Car

bon

Dio

xide

(C

O2)

Mon

itor

ing

Inno

vati

ve W

aste

wat

er T

echn

olog

ies

Vent

ilati

on E

ffec

tive

ness

Wat

er U

se R

educ

tion

, 2

0%

Red

ucti

onC

onst

ruct

ion

IAQ

Man

agem

ent

Pla

n, D

urin

g C

onst

ruct

ion

Wat

er U

se R

educ

tion

, 3

0%

Red

ucti

onC

onst

ruct

ion

IAQ

Man

agem

ent

Pla

n, T

esti

ng B

efor

e O

ccup

ancy

Low

-Em

itti

ng M

ater

ials

, A

dhes

ives

& S

eala

nts

Ene

rgy

& A

tmos

pher

eLo

w-E

mit

ting

Mat

eria

ls, P

aint

s an

d C

oati

ng

Low

-Em

itti

ng M

ater

ials

, C

arpe

t

slairetaM gnitti

mE-

woLgnin oissi

mm o

C sm e tsy

S gnidliuB l a tne

madnuF, C

ompo

site

Woo

d an

d La

min

ates

Adh

esiv

es

Min

imum

Ene

rgy

Per

form

ance

Indo

or C

hem

ical

& P

ollu

tant

Sou

rce

Con

trol

sm ets y

S fo ytiliball ortnoC

sn olaH fo n oit ani

mile dn a tn empiuq

E R

&C

AVH ni n oit cude

R CF

C, P

erim

eter

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce,

New

: 2

4%

MN

EC

B, 1

5%

AS

HR

AE

C

ontr

olla

bilit

y of

Sys

tem

s , N

on-P

erim

eter

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce, N

ew: 2

9%

MN

EC

B, 2

0%

AS

HR

AE

Ther

mal

Com

fort

, C

ompl

y w

ith

AS

HR

AE

55

-20

04

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce, N

ew: 3

3%

MN

EC

B, 2

5%

AS

HR

AE

Ther

mal

Com

fort

, P

erm

anen

t M

onit

orin

g S

yste

m

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce, N

ew: 3

8%

MN

EC

B, 3

0%

AS

HR

AE

Day

light

& V

iew

s , D

aylig

ht 7

5%

of

Spa

ces

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce, N

ew: 4

2%

MN

EC

B, 3

5%

AS

HR

AE

Day

light

& V

iew

s, D

aylig

ht f

or 9

0%

of

Spa

ces

Inno

vati

on &

Des

ign

Pro

cess

LE

ED

Acc

redi

ted

Pro

fess

iona

l

Inno

vati

on in

Des

ign :

Gre

en P

ower

Inno

vati

on in

Des

ign:

Inno

vati

on in

Des

ign:

Inno

vati

on in

Des

ign:


10.0 aPPenDIces










v. Daylighting

Freq

uent

ly A

chie

ved

LEE

D-C

anad

a C

redi

ts f

or M

unic

ipal

Pro

ject

s

27

15

17

10

Pos

sibl

e P

oint

s7

0

62

61

Pos

sibl

e P

oint

s1

44

12

6P

ossi

ble

Poi

nts

14

Y?

NN

Y?

NN

YP

rere

q 1

Y

0lo rtno

C n oit atn emide

S & n ois or

EP

rere

q 1

0

1C

redi

t 1

1

1C

redi

t 1

.11

1C

redi

t 2

1

1C

redi

t 1

.21

1C

redi

t 3

1

1C

redi

t 1

.31

1C

redi

t 4

.11

1C

redi

t 2

.11

1C

redi

t 4

.21

1C

redi

t 2

.21

1C

redi

t 4

.31

1C

redi

t 3

.11

1C

redi

t 4

.41

1C

redi

t 3

.21

1C

redi

t 5

.11

1C

redi

t 4

.11

11

Cre

dit

5.2

11

Cre

dit

4.2

1

1C

redi

t 6

.11

1C

redi

t 5

.11

1C

redi

t 6

.21

Cre

dit

5.2

1

1C

redi

t 7

.11

1C

redi

t 6

1

1C

redi

t 7

.21

1C

redi

t 7

1

1C

redi

t 8

1

1C

redi

t 8

1

30

10

Pos

sibl

e P

oint

s5

57

30

Pos

sibl

e P

oint

s1

5Y

?N

NY

?N

N

1C

redi

t 1

.11

YP

rere

q 1

0

1C

redi

t 1

.21

YP

rere

q 2

0

1C

redi

t 2

1

1C

redi

t 1

1

1C

redi

t 3

.11

1C

redi

t 2

1

Cre

dit

3.2

11

Cre

dit

3.1

1

1C

redi

t 3

.21

63

53

Pos

sibl

e P

oint

s1

71

Cre

dit

4.1

1

Y?

NN

1C

redi

t 4

.21

YP

rere

q 1

0

1C

redi

t 4

.31

YP

rere

q 2

0

1C

redi

t 4

.41

YP

rere

q 3

0

1C

redi

t 5

1

1C

redi

t 1

.11

1C

redi

t 6

.11

1C

redi

t 1

.21

1C

redi

t 6

.21

1C

redi

t 1

.31

1C

redi

t 7

.11

1C

redi

t 1

.41

1C

redi

t 7

.21

1C

redi

t 1

.51

1C

redi

t 8

.11

1C

redi

t 1

.6O

ptim

ize

Ene

rgy

Per

form

ance

, N

ew: 4

7%

MN

EC

B, 4

0%

AS

HR

AE

11

Cre

dit

8.2

1

1C

redi

t 1

.7O

ptim

ize

Ene

rgy

Per

form

ance

, N

ew: 5

1%

MN

EC

B, 4

5%

AS

HR

AE

1

1C

redi

t 1

.8O

ptim

ize

Ene

rgy

Per

form

ance

, N

ew: 5

5%

MN

EC

B, 5

0%

AS

HR

AE

13

20

0P

ossi

ble

Poi

nts

51

Cre

dit

1.9

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce, N

ew: 6

0%

MN

EC

B, 5

5%

AS

HR

AE

1Y

?N

N

1C

redi

t 1

.10

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce, N

ew: 6

4%

MN

EC

B, 6

0%

AS

HR

AE

11

Cre

dit

1.1

1

1C

redi

t 2

.1R

enew

able

Ene

rgy ,

5%

11

Cre

dit

1.2

1

1C

redi

t 2

.2R

enew

able

Ene

rgy ,

10

%1

1C

redi

t 1

.31

1C

redi

t 2

.3R

enew

able

Ene

rgy ,

20

%1

1C

redi

t 1

.41

1C

redi

t 3

1

1gninoi ssi

mmo

C ecitc arP ts e

BC

redi

t 2

1

1C

redi

t 4

1

n oit ce t orP eno z

O

1C

redi

t 5

1

noi ta cifi reV & tne

me rus aeM

Key

1C

redi

t 6

1

10

0%

All

proj

ects

mee

t pr

ereq

uisi

te r

equi

rem

ents

39

%M

ost

Freq

uent

ly a

chie

ved

cred

its

by m

unic

ipal

pro

ject

s

21

%Fr

eque

ntly

ach

ieve

d cr

edit

s by

mun

icip

al g

over

nmen

ts

24

%R

arel

y ac

hiev

ed c

redi

ts b

y m

unic

ipal

pro

ject

s

14

%N

ever

ach

ieve

d by

mun

cipa

l pro

ject

s to

dat

e

Tota

l Pro

ject

Sco

re L

EE

D C

anad

a v1

.0

Cer

tifi

ed 2

6-3

2

Silv

er 3

3-3

8

Gol

d 3

9 -

51

P

lati

num

52

+

Sus

tain

able

Sit

esM

ater

ials

& R

esou

rces

Sto

rage

& C

olle

ctio

n of

Rec

ycla

bles

Sit

e S

elec

tion

Bui

ldin

g R

euse

, M

aint

ain

75

% o

f E

xist

ing

Wal

ls, Fl

oors

and

Roo

f

Dev

elop

men

t D

ensi

tyB

uild

ing

Reu

se, M

aint

ain

95

% o

f E

xist

ing

Wal

ls, Fl

oors

and

Roo

f

Red

evel

opm

ent

of C

onta

min

ated

Sit

esB

uild

ing

Reu

se, M

aint

ain

50

% o

f In

teri

or N

on-S

truc

tura

l Ele

men

ts

Alt

erna

tive

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

, P

ublic

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Acc

ess

Con

stru

ctio

n W

aste

Man

agem

ent,

Div

ert

50

%

Alt

erna

tive

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

, B

icyc

le S

tora

ge &

Cha

ngin

g R

oom

sC

onst

ruct

ion

Was

te M

anag

emen

t, D

iver

t 7

5%

Alt

erna

tive

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

, H

ybri

d an

d A

lter

nati

ve F

uel V

ehic

les

Res

ourc

e R

euse

, S

peci

fy 5

%

Alt

erna

tive

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

, P

arki

ng C

apac

ity

Res

ourc

e R

euse

, S

peci

fy 1

0%

Red

uced

Sit

e D

istu

rban

ce, P

rote

ct o

r R

esto

re O

pen

Spa

ceR

ecyc

led

Con

tent

, S

peci

fy 7

.5%

(pc

+ 1

/2 p

i)

Red

uced

Sit

e D

istu

rban

ce, D

evel

opm

ent

Foot

prin

tR

ecyc

led

Con

tent

, S

peci

fy 1

5%

(pc

+ 1

/2 p

i)

Sto

rmw

ater

Man

agem

ent ,

Rat

e an

d Q

uant

ity

Reg

iona

l Mat

eria

ls, 1

0%

Ext

ract

ed a

nd M

anuf

actu

red

Reg

iona

lly

Sto

rmw

ater

Man

agem

ent ,

Tre

atm

ent

Reg

iona

l Mat

eria

ls, 2

0%

Ext

ract

ed a

nd M

anuf

actu

red

Reg

iona

lly

Hea

t Is

land

s E

ffec

t , N

on-R

oof

Rap

idly

Ren

ewab

le M

ater

ials

, S

peci

fy 5

%

Hea

t Is

land

s ef

fect

, R

oof

Cer

tifi

ed W

ood

Ligh

t P

ollu

tion

Red

ucti

on

Indo

or E

nvir

onm

enta

l Qua

lity

Wat

er E

ffic

ienc

y

Min

imum

IA

Q P

erfo

rman

ce

Dur

able

Bui

ldin

g

Wat

er E

ffic

ient

Lan

dsca

ping

, R

educ

e by

50

%

Env

iron

men

tal T

obac

co S

mok

e (E

TS)

Con

trol

Wat

er E

ffic

ient

Lan

dsca

ping

, N

o P

otab

le U

se o

r N

o Ir

riga

tion

Car

bon

Dio

xide

(C

O2)

Mon

itor

ing

Inno

vati

ve W

aste

wat

er T

echn

olog

ies

Vent

ilati

on E

ffec

tive

ness

Wat

er U

se R

educ

tion

, 2

0%

Red

ucti

on

Con

stru

ctio

n IA

Q M

anag

emen

t P

lan ,

Dur

ing

Con

stru

ctio

nW

ater

Use

Red

ucti

on, 3

0%

Red

ucti

on

Con

stru

ctio

n IA

Q M

anag

emen

t P

lan ,

Tes

ting

Bef

ore

Occ

upan

cy

Low

-Em

itti

ng M

ater

ials

, A

dhes

ives

& S

eala

nts

Ene

rgy

& A

tmos

pher

eLo

w-E

mit

ting

Mat

eria

ls, P

aint

s an

d C

oati

ng

Low

-Em

itti

ng M

ater

ials

, C

arpe

tFu

ndam

enta

l Bui

ldin

g S

yste

ms

Com

mis

sion

ing

Low

-Em

itti

ng M

ater

ials

, C

ompo

site

Woo

d an

d La

min

ates

Adh

esiv

esM

inim

um E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce

Indo

or C

hem

ical

& P

ollu

tant

Sou

rce

Con

trol

CFC

Red

ucti

on in

HVA

C&

R E

quip

men

t an

d el

imin

atio

n of

Hal

ons

Con

trol

labi

lity

of S

yste

ms ,

Per

imet

erO

ptim

ize

Ene

rgy

Per

form

ance

,N

ew: 2

4%

MN

EC

B, 1

5%

AS

HR

AE

Con

trol

labi

lity

of S

yste

ms,

Non

-Per

imet

erO

ptim

ize

Ene

rgy

Per

form

ance

, N

ew: 2

9%

MN

EC

B, 2

0%

AS

HR

AE

Ther

mal

Com

fort

, C

ompl

y w

ith

AS

HR

AE

55

-20

04

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce, N

ew: 3

3%

MN

EC

B, 2

5%

AS

HR

AE

Ther

mal

Com

fort

, P

erm

anen

t M

onit

orin

g S

yste

mO

ptim

ize

Ene

rgy

Per

form

ance

, N

ew: 3

8%

MN

EC

B, 3

0%

AS

HR

AE

Day

light

& V

iew

s, D

aylig

ht 7

5%

of

Spa

ces

Opt

imiz

e E

nerg

y P

erfo

rman

ce, N

ew: 4

2%

MN

EC

B, 3

5%

AS

HR

AE

Day

light

& V

iew

s, D

aylig

ht f

or 9

0%

of

Spa

ces

Inno

vati

on &

Des

ign

Pro

cess

LE

ED

Acc

redi

ted

Pro

fess

iona

l

Inno

vati

on in

Des

ign :

Gre

en P

ower

Inno

vati

on in

Des

ign :

Inno

vati

on in

Des

ign:

Inno

vati

on in

Des

ign:


10.0 aPPenDIces










v. Daylighting

CITY OF VANCOUVER

POLICY REPORT ENVIRONMENT

Report Date: October 17, 2005 Author: Trish French/Dale

Mikkelsen Phone No.: 604.873.7041/604.871.6168 RTS No.: 04441 CC File No.: Meeting

Date:

TO: Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM: Director of Central Area Planning, in consultation with the Manager of Sustainability Office and Chief Building Official

SUBJECT: Vancouver Green Building Strategy

APPENDIX C PAGE 1 OF 4

POSSIBLE BY-LAW CHANGES AND LEED EQUIVALENT VALUES A. Already Regulated or De-Facto 11 pts. Sustainable Sites

1. Site Selection 2. Urban Development 3. Brownfield Redevelopment 4. Alternative Transportation, Public Transit Access 5. Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Facilities 6. Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 7. Light Pollution Reduction – except for special situations

Indoor Environmental Quality

1. Carbon Dioxide Monitoring in public spaces 2. Daylight and Views for 75% 3. Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 4. Views for 90% of spaces


B. Proposed GBS By-law Changes 16 pts. (Preliminary List: subject to consultation and confirmation) Sustainable Sites 1 pts. Stormwater Management Rate and Quantity – 1 pt.

- Sewer and Watercourse By-law amendment to require stormwater retention

Water Efficiency 2 pts. Water Efficient Landscaping – 1 pt.

- Water shortage response plan – can be upgraded to reduce by 50% Water Use Reduction 20% - 1 pt.

- Plumbing Codes 7.2.10.6 (2) & (3) – lav’s, sinks, showerheads, and water closets in non- residential buildings

Energy and Atmosphere 3 pts. Optimise Energy Performance 10% - 1 pt.

- Energy Utilization Provision of the Building By-law amendment – ASHRAE “plus” (subject to cost/benefit analysis)

- Energy design guidelines developed Ozone Depletion – 1 pt.

- Energy Utilization Provision of the Building By-law: full implementation of current ASHRAE 90.1

Additional Commissioning – 1 pt. - Energy Utilization Provision of the Building By-law: full implementation of current

ASHRAE 90.1

Materials and Resources 3 pts. Construction Waste Management 50% - 1 pt.

- VBBL and Solid Waste By-law amendment (underway) Construction Waste Management 75% - 1 pt.

- VBBL and Solid Waste By-law amendment (underway) Building Durability – 1 pt.

- CSA standards for envelope/rain screen; amendment in VBBL

Indoor Environmental Quality 3 pts. Construction IAQ post-occupancy – 1 pt.

- Pre-design under ASHRAE 90.1 and ref. to ASHRAE 62 – enforcement issue


Thermal Comfort – 2 pts.


- Innovation and Design 4 pts. Education Program for Owners and Operators – 1 pt.


Allocation of space for building compost collection – 1 pt

-Zoning and Development By-law, Waste Management By-law Collection of Organics – 1 pt.

- pilot program in SEFC - broader application subject to City organic waste collection

Alternative Vehicles/Car-Share Program – 1 pt.

- Parking By-Law (underway) C. Often Attained: Low/No Cost (no proposed work) 6 Pts. Materials and Resources

1. Resource Reuse 5% 2. Local/Regional Materials 20%

Indoor Environmental Quality

1. Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives and Solvents 2. Low-Emitting Materials, Paints 3. Low-Emitting Materials, Carpets 4. LEED Accredited Professional

Summary of LEED Equivalent Points A. Already Regulated or De-Facto 11 Pts. B. Phase 1 GBS By-law Changes 16 Pts.

- Sustainable Sites - 1 Pts. - Water Efficiency- 2 Pts. - Energy & Atmosphere - 3 Pts. - Materials & Resources- 3 Pts. - Indoor Environmental Quality- 3 Pts. - Innovation & Design- 4 Pts.

C. Often Attained (Low or no cost; non- regulated ) 6 Pts.


TOTAL 33 Pts. LEED Certified: 26-32 Points LEED Silver: 33-38 Points


10.0 aPPenDIces










v. Daylighting


10.0 aPPenDIces










v. Daylighting

“

Demand Control Ventilation

Capital cost: Increased

Lifecycle cost: <5 year payback


1.1 Description

CO2 Demand Control Ventilation

(DCV) is a real-time, occupancy-

based ventilation approach that

can offer significant energy savings

over traditional fixed ventilation

approaches, particularly where

occupancy is intermittent, or variable

from design conditions. Properly

applied, it allows for the maintenance

of target per-person ventilation rates

at all times. Even in spaces where

occupancy is static, CO2 DCV can be

used to ensure that every zone within

a space is adequately ventilated for its

actual occupancy. Air intake dampers

can be controlled automatically,

avoiding accidental and costly over- or

under-ventilation.

1.2 Applicability

Building Types - DCV strategies can

be employed in almost all types of

buildings. They are most beneficial

in spaces where occupancy can vary

significantly from maximum design

conditions, such meeting spaces,

auditoriums and conference halls.

New vs. Retrofits - DCV is relatively

simple to install in a retrofit scenario,

provided that the quantity of outdoor

air can be varied based on sensor

input.

1.3 Benefits

Benefits of DCV include:

• Excessive over-ventilation - this is

avoided while still maintaining good

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ);

• Energy Savings - studies have

shown that annual energy savings

in the order of $10/m² can be

realized;

• Reduced peak electricity demand

- when occupancy levels fall below

design levels during peak periods,

customers who are charged for

demand (kW) earn monthly utility

bill savings;

• Automatic reset - a DCV system

will automatically reset damper

positions without manual assistance

from building maintenance staff,

ensuring the building is being run at

its optimum efficiency at all times;

• Outdoor Air - the CO2 system will

consider infiltration air and operable

windows as a source of outdoor air,

therefore additional savings may be

sought; and

• Highly adaptable control strategy

– this will auto-adjust for any future

changes to the use of the space.

Available data suggests that DVC

reduces ventilation, heating and cooling

loads by 10% to 30%

www.aircuity.com”

DEMAND CONTROL VENTILATION | 1

CO2 Panel Sensor

Source: www.topac.com

1.4 Limitations

The limitations of demand control ventilation systems are

as follows:

• In recent years there has emerged a stigma within the

construction industry that CO2 sensors and control

systems do not work. This perception has stemmed from

incorrect installations and improper designs;

• These systems must be re-commissioned at regular

intervals to verify performance and measurement are

accurate; and

• There is a concern regarding the accuracy of the

outdoor sensors in cold climates. In these cases it is

recommended that a fixed CO2 level be assigned, based

on the program requirements of each space.

1.5 Design/Installation Considerations

The following are some general guidelines for designing a

DCV system:

Control Strategy - the objective is to modulate ventilation

in order to maintain ventilation rates based on actual

occupancy. Typical control mechanisms include a

proportional or proportional-integral controller. CO2

is measured in parts per million (e.g., 100 parts of CO2

to a million parts of air) and is typically measured as a

difference between inside and outside CO2 levels.

Duct vs. Wall Mounted - it is generally recommended

that the sensors be mounted within the space rather than

in the return air duct, as this technology doesn’t treat

individual spaces separately, but averages all spaces being

conditioned. Duct sensors may be appropriate if the

multiple spaces have similar occupancy patterns and uses.

Location of Wall-Mount Sensors - criteria for the

placement of CO2 sensors are similar to that of temperature

sensors. Installation near doors, air intakes, exhausts, open

windows, or locations where people may breathe on the

sensor should be avoided. One sensor is required per zone

and should be located at least 0.5 metres from busy areas.

1.6 Capital & Life Cycle Cost Considerations

The payback for CO2 DCV will be greatest in higher

occupant density spaces that are subject to variable

occupancy profiles and that would otherwise have a fixed

ventilation strategy.

Typically the sensors cost approximately $1,000 dollars

fully installed, usually with one sensor per zone. Other

additional expenses include infrastructure to connect the

sensors into the building controls. On average, DCV has

approximately a two to three year payback period.

Another design consideration is the cost premium

associated with more control boxes. To gain the greatest

benefits, more control points would be required than

conventional design.

1.7 Applicability to LEED

DCV applies directly to:

• EQc1 – CO2 Monitoring.

The LEED requirements include installing a system that

provides feedback on space ventilation performance, in

a form that affords operational adjustments. CO2 sensors

will not only monitor indoor levels but also monitor the

difference between indoor and outdoor levels.

Energy may be conserved by varying the amount of fresh

air relative to the occupancy levels. DCV therefore also

indirectly affects:

• EAp2 – Minimum Energy Performance

• EAc1 – Optimize Energy Performance


1.8 Local Applications

There are several examples of DCV within the British

Columbia region including the following:

• Vancouver Post Office – Vancouver

• Vancouver International Terminal – Richmond

• Revenue Canada Building - Surrey

• Stantec Boardrooms - Vancouver

1.9 Other Resources

Additional information can be found within the ASHRAE

(American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-

Conditioning Engineers) handbooks and publications:

www.ashrae.org

In addition to ASHRAE, the Health Canada website also

contains useful information on understanding Indoor Air

Quality problems and solutions in schools, but the issues

apply across the board in all types of developments:

www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/

pubs/air/tools_school-outils_ecoles/tools_school-outils_

ecoles_e.pdf


“

Geoexchange

Well-designed geoexchange sys-

tems can reliably reduce heating energy

consumption by 65% to 75% and cooling

energy consumption by 15% to 40%

when compared to conventional North

American building designs.

”

1.1 Description

A geoexchange heating and

cooling system uses the consistent

temperature of the earth (or body of

water) to provide heating, cooling,

and hot water for both residential

and commercial buildings. Water is

circulated through polyethelene pipes

in closed loops, below the earth’s

surface. These loops can be buried

vertically or horizontally in the ground,

or submersed in a pond. These loops

are connected to water source heat

pumps.

1.2 Applicability

Building Type - Geoexchange

systems can be adapted to nearly any

type of building in nearly any setting.

However, the design of the system

must appropriately account for the

heating/cooling load profile specific

to the building and to the physical

features of the site. Geoexchange

technology is therefore better suited

for some types of buildings and

settings but not others, and so costs

can vary significantly.

In regions such as the Lower Mainland,

it is particularly important because

widely varying regional climates cause

significant variation in building load

profiles and widely varying ground

conditions affect the performance,

cost (installation and annual), and

construction considerations relating

to the ground heat exchange

coupling.

New vs Retrofits - Geoexchange

is generally reserved for new

developments, as retrofit

developments are often subject to site

constraints. This is site-dependent.

1.3 Benefits

There are many advantages to

geoexchange heating and cooling

systems over conventional HVAC

systems:

• Single unit - heating, cooling, and

hot water are provided in one unit;

• Low maintenance - geoexchange

systems have fewer moving parts

than conventional systems;

• Safe - geoexchange systems have

no open flames;

• Clean - geoexchange water source

heat pump access panels are well

constructed and tightly sealed and

no combustion air is required;

• Dependable - geoexchange

systems use proven solid state

electronic controls, largely due to

less moving parts within the units;

www.geoexchangebc.ca

GEOEXCHANGE | 5

Vertical Geothermal field

Source: Iowa Energy Centrewww.energy.iastate.edu/

Capital cost: Increase

Lifecycle cost: 5-10 year payback

Ease of Implementation: Medium

• Durable - a geoexchange water source heat pump will

last up to 30 years when properly installed:

• Less stress - the geoexchange compressor operates

under less stress than a conventional system which

has to work harder to compensate for variable outside

temperatures;

• No gas piping - geoexchange systems do not use

natural gas;

• No gas combustion - over time, gas combustion causes

rust and corrosion of furnace components;

• Lower cost of operation - geoexchange systems are

more efficient than fossil fuel or electric heating and

cooling systems;

• No exhaust venting - geoexchange systems have no

combustion air or venting requirements; and

• Waste heat - Any heat not utilized for heating and

cooling purposes can potentially be used to preheat

domestic hot water requirements.

1.4 Limitations

In today’s marketplace, there are numerous barriers to full

consumer and commercial adoption. All of these potential

barriers can be minimized through a careful design

process. These barriers include:

• Higher initial cost compared with conventional systems;

• Deficiencies in some past installations, creating negative

sentiment;

• Lack of training, certification and support for installers,

designers and customers (although this is becoming less

of a concern);

• Lack of tracked information to support claims of value;

• Poor customer follow-through on servicing and/or repair;

• Design difficulties with some underground loops;

• Energy balance considerations – concerns that if too

much heat is removed from the ground, year after year

this will lead to long-term cooling of the surrounding

soils. The reduced temperatures will decrease the

capacity of the system. However, appropriate attention to

design will eliminate this; and

• Increased use of electricity – while these systems

eliminate the need for fossil fuel connections, the

systems do require a greater amount of electricity to run

the circulation pumps.

1.5 Design/Installation Considerations

The following factors must be considered in order to

evaluate the technical feasibility and economic viability of

a geoexchange system application.

Site setting - Geoexchange systems can be designed for

most sites. Careful evaluation of site-specific conditions,

including geology, hydrogeology, geography, and

topography, will determine the feasibility and the most

cost-effective configuration of the ground coupling system.

Building energy requirements - The long-term thermal

storage and inertia of the earth’s mass will affect the

geoexchange systems performance. Therefore, calculations

must go beyond peak heating and cooling loads, and

take into account the annual heating and cooling energy

requirements of the building.

GEOEXCHANGE | 6

Geoexchange system configuration - Designing a

geoexchange heat pump system is more complex than

designing a conventional HVAC system. The overall

geoexchange system performance depends on dynamic,

long-term thermal interaction between the ground heat

exchanger and the building load side of the system. The

system operating efficiency depends predominantly on the

temperature difference between the geoexchanger and

the building load. Smaller temperature differences allow

more efficient system performance.

Availability and cost of fossil fuel alternatives - To justify

the typically higher capital cost of geoexchange and to

realize its long-term economic viability, any geoexchange

design should be able to compete with and outperform all

other available conventional HVAC system design options

relying on fossil fuels or electricity. This includes full life

cycle cost analysis.


The capital cost of a geoexchange system is typically

higher than the cost of a conventional HVAC system mainly

due to the added cost of the ground heat exchanger.

Many factors have to be carefully evaluated to develop

a cost-effective geoexchange system configuration. In

general, geoexchange can be successfully applied to

any type of building provided a thorough economic and

technical assessment indicates long-term energy and cost-

effectiveness.


Geothermal fields directly impact the quantity of energy

consumed by the development. LEED credits are as follows:

• EAp2 – Minimum Energy Performance prerequisite

• EAc1 – Optimize Energy


There are currently approximately 30,000 residential

Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHPs) in Canada. An

estimated 1,000 residential GSHPs are installed in Canada

per year. Local examples of GSHPs include the Oakridge

Shopping Centre, the Vancouver International Airport

terminal, as well as residential communities such as

Sunrivers in Kamloops.

Other examples within the Greater Vancouver region

include:

• Burnaby Mountain High School

• Mole Hill Housing Project

• Gleneagles Community Centre

• GVRD Seymour/ Capilano filtration plant

1.9 Other Resources

GeoExchange BC: www.geoexchangebc.ca/

This website contains information centering on the British

Columbia market and includes content such as:

• Report, publications and resources;

• BC installations and case studies;

• Financial assistance;

• Industry news; and

• A directory of service providers.

GEOEXCHANGE | 7

“

WATERLESS URINALS | 9

Waterless Urinals

Capital cost: Neutral



According to the GVRD Municipal

Water Demand by Sector report (2005),

water consumed by residences in the

GVRD in 2001 was at a daily rate of 320

litres per person. This is lower than the

provincial average of 425 litres/day for

the same period, but much higher than

the national rate of 343 litres/day.

”

1.1 Description

Waterless urinals are a relatively

new product to North America, and

have become an appealing means

of conserving water in buildings.

Technologies have developed over

recent years and these fixtures can

be very successful if applied and

maintained correctly.

Waterless urinals have a similar look

to conventional urinals; however,

they do not require water to flush

the waste. The waterless versions are

designed with an extremely smooth

bowl surface to direct waste easily

into the trap. The trap contains a

cartridge filled with a liquid sealant.

The difference in specific gravity

between the trap solution and urine

creates a liquid seal. The lighter

sealant enables the liquid to float to

the top of the waste, creating a seal

and preventing odours from backing

up. Waterless urinals are installed with

a conventional drain line and are wall-

hung. Installation is faster and simpler

than water flushing urinals since

there is no requirement to connect a

waterline or flush valve.

Materials differ between

manufacturers; some use vitreous

china while others use moulded

plastics. Moulded plastic fixtures are

lighter and less costly, whereas fixtures

made from vitreous china are more

durable.

1.2 Applicability

Occupancy - waterless urinals are

appropriate for any kind of facility

where a conventional urinal might

be used. Waterless urinals function

as do conventional urinals in terms of

use, and as such they can be applied

quite widely. It may be prudent to

include signage indicating the type of

technology, as users may wonder at

the lack of water or flushing apparatus.

It is also wise for designers to ensure

that more durable products are used

where there is greater vandalism

potential.

Project size - any project size is

appropriate for this type of product.

Larger projects with higher occupancy

will see greater savings through

greater reduction in water usage.

New vs. retrofits - this technology is

appropriate for use with both new and

retrofit projects. The greatest financial

benefit is realized with new projects

since water lines can be omitted, but

the technology can and has been used

successfully for retrofits.Waterless Urinal

Source: www.waterless.com

GVRD 2005

1.3 Benefits

Benefits include:

• Conservation - there is potential to

save significant quantities of potable

water. Waterless urinals can save

approximately 151,000 litres of water

per urinal per year (SGOG 2004) in

commercial and industrial applications;

• Low cost - installation costs are kept low since no water

piping is connected to the unit;

• Low maintenance - eliminates maintenance to flush

controls, sensors to adjust flow, battery replacement and

eliminates leaks to water piping; and

• Improved sanitary conditions - flushing tends to create

turbulence generating an invisible mist of airborne

germs.

1.4 Limitations

Common limitations include:

• Many manufacturers are getting CSA approval for their

products, so it is still necessary for designers to confirm

with newer manufacturers that they have obtained the

necessary approvals for installation in Canada;

• The source of most of the problems with waterless

urinals can be traced back to improper installation or

maintenance;

• The need to obtain a variance from the municipality; and

• New maintenance procedures will need to be developed

for this product.

1.5 Design/Installation

Considerations

Installing waterless urinals is relatively

simple compared to installing a

conventional flushing fixture. There

are no waterlines to connect, and

no flushing valves to install; the only

connection required is to a standard

drain line. It is still important that the manufacturer’s

directions be followed for installation. Problems have been

reported with leaks between the fixture and the drain line

due to improper pitch of the drain line.


The capital cost for these urinals is approximately equal to

conventional technologies when considering the cost of

the entire system. A cost savings on installation offsets a

slight cost increase for the fixtures.

Slightly increased maintenance costs are also offset by

water cost savings. It is important to note that as water

costs increase, a differential will appear, making the life

cycle cost less for the waterless version.

1.7 Manufacturer Information

There are several companies that manufacture waterless

urinal fixtures. Many companies offer a mixture of both

vitreous china and molded plastic models (see below).

Each manufacturer has a slightly different product, but

the technology remains the same across all sources. While

there have

been positive


and negative reviews of products supplied by all the

manufacturers, the common theme persists: proper

installation and maintenance will result in more

satisfactory results. Cleaning products, trap cartridges,

and maintenance tools are all available from select

manufacturers as well.

The following manufacturer information is provided for

example purposes only. The GVRD does not specifically

endorse any one product. BuildSmart’s Product Directory

provides further information on supplier and manufacturer

resources.

• Sloan Valve Company - Waterfree Urinals (CSA approved):

www.sloanvalve.com

• Waterless (CSA approved): www.waterless.com

• Falcon Waterfree (CSA approved): www.falconwaterfree.

com


Waterless urinals apply to 2 LEED credits directly, as follows:

• WEc2 – Innovative Wastewater technologies

• WEc3 – Water Use Reduction


Local applications of waterless urinal technology include:

• The City of White Rock Operations Building

• The Vancouver Island Technology Park

• City of Vancouver National Street Works Yard

1.10 Other Resources

Vickers, Amy. 2001. Handbook of Water Use and

Conservation. Waterplow Press, MA.

Smart Growth on the Ground (SGOG), 2004. Water

Consumption in Maple Ridge. Technical Bulletin No. 2.

Sustainable Communities Program, UBC:

www.sgog.bc.ca/uplo/mr2wateruse.pdf

GVRD, 2005. Water Consumption Statistics. 2005

Edition. Burnaby, BC: GVRD, Operations and Maintenance

Department.


“

Solar Domestic Hot Water




Domestic water heating contributes

approximately 6 million tonnes of CO2

each year toward Canada’s greenhouse

gas emissions.

”

1.1 Description

A solar domestic hot water system

(SDHW) is one which absorbs the sun’s

energy and transfers it to a storage

cylinder. Solar hot water panels do

not produce electricity, they heat the

water directly.

A SDHW system is typically installed

along with another source of heating

such as electric, gas or oil. This will

ensure that hot water is provided all

year round.

The installation of a solar system

involves more than just plumbing; it

also involves other trades including

roofers and electricians, and also

requires people with solar technical

skills. Architects and Structural

Engineers, may design the systems.

A typical system will include a set

of solar collectors, pumps, a heat

exchanger and storage medium

to store the hot water for when it

is required. Increased structural

requirements may be needed to

support the solar collectors on the

roof.

1.2 Applicability

Building Type - Solar hot water

heating can be applied in areas

including pool heating, space

heating, domestic hot water, and any

combination thereof. There are two

main types of systems that may be

implemented:

1) Direct system - the fluid that

passes through the solar panels is

actually the water that eventually

comes out of the hot tap. In this

type of system, there are concerns

with the water freezing in the

panels during the winter. To

counter this, the panels will need

to be drained. Lime-scale build-up

is a potential problem.

2) Indirect system - the water in the

panels passes through a heat

exchanger (coil) in the cylinder

and then back to the panels in

a continuous loop. Anti-freeze

agents can be added to the

closed-loop to prevent freezing

and additives can be added

to prevent lime-scale build-up

without affecting the water quality.

An indirect system is most appropriate

for the microclimates within the lower

mainland.

www.canren.gc.ca

SOLAR DOMESTIC HOT WATER | 13

Solar Domestic Hot Water System

Source: Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolkwww.west-norfolk.gov.uk/

Solar hot water can be used for other demand sources in

addition to domestic hot water. Another use includes the

use of solar hot water for space heating, systems such as

hydronic radiators, fan-coil systems and forced-air systems.

New vs. retrofits - Existing building retrofits are

complicated and usually not economically feasible at

small scales. Investigation into the technologies is always

recommended.

1.3 Benefits

The major benefits of SDHW are:

• Cost reduction - on-site generation reduces associated

hot water heating fuel costs, reducing utility bills by

approximately 40-50%;

• No fossil fuels - SDHW systems involve the use of

renewable energy sources, and therefore does not

involve the burning of fossil fuels, and its associated

problems including greenhouse gas emissions; and

• Economies of scale - SDHW systems provide an

economy of scale (the larger the project, the cheaper the

initial costs become).

1.4 Limitations


• Systems can often offer poor performance during local

winter conditions, however the increased benefits seen

across the entire year outweigh these limitations;

• Small scale retrofits are usually not economically feasible;

and

• System needs to be correctly sized. If it is oversized

there needs to be a place to which the additional heat

can be rejected (i.e., swimming pool or recharge a geo-

exchange system).


There are many different solar water heating products on

the market. Interested parties are always encouraged to

research current available technologies: it is often worth

paying a premium for quality, performance, and system

longevity.

Residential domestic hot water (DHW) systems are usually

sized according to the number of residents and can cost

$800-$1,400 per person, installed. Systems for multi-unit

DHW and similar commercial-scale year-round applications

cost $100-200 per annual gigajoule offset. System life

spans are around 15 – 20 years.

Some people are finding it challenging to budget for

long-term energy savings in return for the up-front capital

expense. Financing solutions are being developed: low-

rate loans are currently offered by some solar companies

and financial institutions in B.C.


Introducing solar hot water to your project will affect three

credits with respect to LEED, as follows:

• EAp2 – Minimum Energy Performance

• EAc1 – Optimize Energy Perfomance

• EAc2 – Renewable Energy



The British Columbia Sustainable Energy Association

(www.bcsea.org) contains information on renewable

technologies, including installations in the lower mainland

region, such as:

• Hyde Creek – solar domestic hot water for a community

centre in Coquitlam

• Vancouver Airport – 100 glazed collectors installed for

hot water at Vancouver International Airport’s domestic

terminal building

• Ocean Village – solar pool heating system for a resort in

Tofino.

• Solar-Ready – new co-housing community in Robert’s

Creek is pre-plumbed for solar

1.8 Other Resources

The following rebate schemes are available:

• Currently in British Columbia, there is no PST on solar

products and services.

• The Renewable Energy Development Initiative (REDI) is

a federal scheme the offers 25% of the installed costs for

commercial developments.

Additional resources include:

• Canadian Renewable Energy Network:

www.canren.gc.ca

• Canadian Solar Industry Association: www.cansia.ca

• British Columbia Sustainable Energy Association:

www.bcsea.org

• Renewable Energy Deployment Initiative:

www.nrcan.gc.ca/redi

• International Solar Energy Society policy proposals:

www.whitepaper.ises.org


Daylighting




A well-designed daylit building is

estimated to reduce lighting energy use

by 50% to 80%”

”Sustainable Building Technical

Manual 1996

1.1 Description

Daylighting design involves the

introduction of outdoor, natural light

into indoor spaces at levels that are

appropriate for the function of the

space. The purpose is not only to

utilize and increase natural lighting

levels, but also to minimize energy

use and maximize human comfort. A

growing body of evidence is showing

that the provision of daylight and

outdoor views has a beneficial effect

on building occupants.

Daylighting is an effective energy

conservation measure in two ways:

1) When linked with an artificial

lighting control system that dims

or switches off lights when there is

sufficient natural light within the

building; and

2) By reducing artificial lighting loads,

the correspondingly reduced cooling

loads result in decreased energy use.

1.2 Applicability

Building Type - daylighting strategies

are often not considered in a retail

scenario because sunlight can affect

the integrity of or damage products.

Blackout or brownout features can

also be included within naturally-lit

project designs, if this is a requirement

of the space.

New vs. Retrofits - daylighting

strategies can be applied to newly

constructed and designed buildings,

as well as retrofit projects. The

difference between the two is the

nature of the daylighting strategy to

be implemented.

1.3 Benefits

The major benefits of daylighting are:

• Lighting quality - improved

interior lighting;

• Increased productivity and

reduced absenteeism - studies are

indicating increased productivity

and reduced absenteeism of

building users due to improved

daylighting;

• Improved comfort and health;

• Occupancy labor cost savings;

• Cooling load reduction;

• Energy cost reductions - due in

part to smaller plant capacity; and

• Reduced peak electricity demand.

DAYLIGHTING | 17

Teresen Gas Building – Interior Light Shelves

“

1.4 Limitations


• Over-luminance, leading to an increased level of

perceived glare and resulting in visual discomfort;

• Integration of daylight sensors that are properly

designed and installed; and

• Adequate switching (on/off ) lighting systems.

1.5 Design Considerations

The following principles are to be considered when

designing quality naturally-lit spaces:

• Allow no direct sun penetration, except in circulation

spaces;

• Select glazing that diffuses the light broadly;

• Use shading or light shelves to diffuse light in interior

spaces;

• Introduce daylight through the highest points possible;

• Use light-coloured surfaces;

• Keep brightest surfaces out of line of sight; and

• Provide blinds or louvres where there is potential for

glare or for audio-visual control.

Other design strategy implications to be taken into

account when designing naturally-lit spaces include:

• Natural ventilation;

• Visual communication;

• Noise control;

• Radiant comfort - hot and cold surfaces;

• Safety and security;

• Air and water leakage;

• Condensation; and

• Maintenance and replacement.


The capital cost for daylighting depends on the technology

that is being employed. The introduction of internal

and external elements will provide an increase in capital

cost; however, any increases in capital cost can often be

minimized or offset by the creation of efficiencies in other

systems. Internal and external elements will have a higher

maintenance and cleaning cost.

Cost savings associated with the impact of daylighting on

productivity, absenteeism, and occupant satisfaction are

the focus of numerous studies not within the scope of this

technology sheet. See resources in section 1.11 below.

1.7 Potential Daylighting Strategies

Methods of improving and controlling daylighting within

an internal space include:

• Daylight linking to turn off artificial lighting when natural

lighting levels are sufficient;

• Fixed external shading devices to restrict direct light

penetration;

• Internal light-shelves to increase light penetration;

• Spectrally selective glazing (glass that allows daylight

to penetrate the space while reflecting unwanted heat

away from the building;

• Operable internal blinds for glare control;

• Open plan spaces close to the perimeter of the building

to improve deeper light penetration;

• Skylights, clerestories, internal atriums and courtyards;

DAYLIGHTING | 18

• Narrower floorplates to provide a greater %age of floor

area to natural light; and

• Orientation of the building.

1.8 Manufacturer Information

There are many manufacturers that implement façade

systems; however, the larger firms are an attractive

option, such as Pilkington (http://www.pilkington.com/

the+americas/canada/english/default.htm). There is

also an organisation within British Columbia called the

Glazing Contractors Association of British Columbia. Their

website lists a range of registered contractors who will

install glazing and façade systems (http://www.gca-bc.org/

component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/).


Daylighting systems directly affect:

• IEQc8.1 – Daylight and Views: Daylight 75% of Spaces

• IEQc8.2 – Daylight and Views: Views for 90% of spaces

Through the introduction of a daylight linking system

(point 1 of section 1.7), daylighting will affect LEED energy

credits, including

• EAp2 – Minimize Energy Performance

• EAc1 – Optimize Energy Performance


White Rock Operations Building – Two daylighting

strategies that were implemented are:

• Horizontal, external shading devices; and

• Narrow floor plate design allowing natural light

penetration to reach a greater proportion of building

users.

Terasen Gas Operation Centre, Surrey – Interior light

shelves were used to allow daylight to penetrate deep into

the building interior.

APEGBC Headquarters, Burnaby, BC – This building uses

external fritted glass sunshades on the east and southern

façades, in combination with low-emissivity glazing to

reduce the solar loads by approximately 60%. These

strategies also enhance daylighting performance and

reduce glare opportunities. Low voltage lighting has also

been employed. Ceiling- mounted fabric reflects both

natural and artificial light to increase this effect.

1.11 Other Resources

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories: Tips for

Daylighting. This is a comprehensive guide to daylighting:

http://windows.lbl.gov/

The GVRD contains links to resources for designing

effective daylit spaces:

http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/Daylighting.htm

DAYLIGHTING | 19

BuildSmart is the Lower Mainland’s resource for sustainable design and construction information. Developed by Metro Vancouver, this innovative program encourages the use of green building strategies and technologies; supports green building efforts by offering tools and technical resources; and educates the building industry on sustainable design and building practices.


Busby Perkins + Will was established by Peter Busby in 1984 and is currently recognized as one of the leading “green” architectural firms in Canada. The majority of the staff is LEED™ accredited. The firm is deeply committed to environmental sustainability and specializes in using a variety of design techniques to conserve energy, and effect the many aspects of design that are interwoven with sustainable architecture. This commitment goes beyond buildings - into research, education, and development of public policy and sustainable guidelines for Canada.

www.busby.ca

Stantec, founded in 1954, provides professional design and consulting services in planning, engineering, architecture, surveying, economics, and project management. Continually striving to balance economic, environmental, and social responsibilities, we are recognized as a world-class leader and innovator in the delivery of sustainable solutions. We support public and private sector clients in a diverse range of markets in the infrastructure and facilities sector at every stage, from initial concept and financial feasibility to project completion and beyond.Our services are offered through over 8,500 employees operating out of more than 125 locations in North America.

www.stantec.com

BUSBY PERKINS

+WILL


For more information call our Sustainable Business Services information line at 604-451-6575 or email [email protected].

Visit BuildSmart and SmartSteps Directory for your one-stop shopping for green products and services

Documents

Metro Vancouver Design Guide for Municipal LEED Buildings