Report to/Rapport au :

Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique

 

1 December 2009 / le 1 décembre 2009

 

Submitted by/Soumis par: Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager / directeur municipal

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Gordon MacNair, Director, Real Estate Partnerships and Development Office / directeur, Bureau de développement et de partenariats immobiliers

(613) 580-2424 x 21217, Gordon.MacNair@ottawa.ca

River (16)

Ref N°: ACS2009-CMR-REP-0053

 

 

SUBJECT:

disposal sTrategy - 3071 riverside drive – former bayview PUBLIC school

 

 

OBJET :

STRATÉGIE D’ÉLIMINATION – 3071, PROMENADE RIVERSIDE – ANCIENNE ÉCOLE PUBLIQUE BAYVIEW

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council:

 

  1. Retain the portions of the property at 3071 Riverside Drive shown as Parcels “A” and “C” on Document 1 to allow for use as a sports field (approximately 0.791 ha / 1.95 ac) and for the construction of a field house (approximately 0.09 ha / 0.22ac) respectively as described in this report; 

 

  1. Direct staff to pursue the acquisition of 2026 Springland Drive, shown as Parcel “D” on Document 1 attached and described as Part of Lots 24 and 25 Junction Gore, shown as part 2 on plan 4R-12424 being all of PIN 040730129, for use as an access to the property at 3071 Riverside Drive as outlined in this report and report back on costs and funding source in Q1 2010;

 

  1. Declare the property, shown as Parcel “B” on Document 1 attached containing an area of approximately 3.173 ha (7.85 ac), described as part of Lot 24 Junction Gore, concession 2 (O.F.), Geographic Township of Gloucester, now in the City of Ottawa, being part of PIN 040730076, as surplus to the City’s needs; and

 

  1. Direct staff to advertise the 3.173 ha (7.85 ac) property, shown as Parcel “B” on Document 1 attached, for sale, subject to development conditions as described in this report to ensure the redevelopment of this property is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique recommande au Conseil :

  1. de conserver les portions de la propriété située au 3071, promenade Riverside, affichée en Parcelles « A » et « C » au Document 1, permettant son utilisation à titre de terrain de sport (environ 0,791 ha / 1,95 acres) et pour la construction d’un pavillon (environ 0,090 ha / 0,22 acre) respectivement, tel qu’il est décrit dans le présent rapport;
  2. demander au personnel de rechercher l’acquisition du 2026, promenade Springland, affiché en Parcelle « D » au Document 1 ci‑joint et décrit comme faisant partie des lots 24 et 25, Junction Gore, illustré comme étant la partie 2 sur le Plan 4R‑12424 et segment de PIN 040730129, pour fins d’utilisation comme un accès à la propriété située au 3071, promenade Riverside, tel qu’il est énoncé dans le présent rapport, et de faire rapport sur les coûts et la source de financement au T1 de 2010;
  3. de déclarer la propriété, affichée en Parcelle « B » au Document 1 ci‑joint, ayant une superficie d’environ 3,173 ha (7,85 acres), décrite comme faisant partie du lot 24, Junction Gore, concession 2, orientée vers la rivière des Outaouais, canton géographique de Gloucester, maintenant dans la Ville d’Ottawa, segment de PIN 040730076, comme excédentaire aux besoins de la Ville;
  4. de demander au personnel d’annoncer que la propriété de 3,173 ha (7,85 acres), affichée en Parcelle « B » au Document 1 ci‑joint, est à vendre sous réserve des conditions de développement décrites dans le présent rapport dans le but de veiller à ce que le réaménagement de cette propriété soit compatible avec le quartier avoisinant.

BACKGROUND

 

City Policy - Acquisition of Surplus School Properties

 

In May 2007, staff submitted a report with recommendations with respect to a policy for acquiring surplus school properties (“Policy for Surplus Schools” ref. # ACS2007-PTE-POL-0033) that was considered by the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) and the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) in June 2007. Based on the recommendations of PEC and ARAC, Council, on 29 August 2007, approved as follows:

 

·        that, where a school board within the City of Ottawa offers a school site as surplus to its educational needs, the City of Ottawa indicate an interest in acquiring this site on a case by case basis;

·        that staff establish criteria for the evaluation of surplus schools sites for review and approval by the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, Planning and Environment Committee and Council after which staff be directed to undertake an evaluation and prioritization of school sites for the purpose of identifying sites that would meet City needs should they be declared surplus or are already surplus;

·        that these priorities be reviewed on an annual basis;

 

·        that a funding strategy be brought forward for the 2008 Budget in order to acquire school board property that qualifies.

 

During the same period, the City received notice from the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB), dated 27 June 2007, that 3071 Riverside Drive (Former Bayview School property) and 2720 Richmond Road (Former Grant Alternative School property) were surplus to the Board’s needs and were being circulated to the City under Regulation 445/06 of the Education Act. These properties were offered, in accordance with the Regulation, to the “priority purchasers” which includes the City.

 

The City, as a priority purchaser, had only this limited opportunity to submit offers to purchase the Bayview and Grant School properties prior to these properties being offered for sale on the open market. As a result, Council decided on 28 November 2007 (Report ACS2007-BTS-RPM-0042) to act on the acquisition of these properties prior to establishing the criteria and priorities for acquiring school properties and directed staff to pursue these acquisitions.

 

Acquisition of  Former Bayview School Property

 

The City subsequently purchased the property at 3071 Riverside Drive (Bayview School property) from the Ottawa Carleton District School Board (OCDSB) on 31 October 2008 for $8,090,000 ($809,000 per acre) based on the directive given by Council on 28 November 2007.

 

The subject property is currently a 4.054 hectare (10 acres) parcel of vacant land consisting of a main parcel (4.03 ha) and ancillary parcel (0.024 ha), that provides an access to Mooney’s Bay Place, shown as Parcels “A” and “B” respectively on the sketch plan attached as Document 2 to this report.

 

At the time this property was offered for sale, it was improved with a two storey 2,860 m2 (30,785 ft2) vacant school building, which has since been demolished, and a sports field.

 

The November 2007 Council directive also included for staff to report back to Council with an appropriate redevelopment plan outlining how this property can be optimized.  Potential benefits and opportunities for the City in the acquisition of this property were identified at that time as follows: preserving recreational greenspace, providing a sports field, and selling and developing a portion of the property. The report noted that the developable portion of the lands could be offered for sale to a developer to create intensification within the greenbelt in support of the objectives of the Official Plan and to offset a portion of the acquisition cost for the property. The highest and best use for development was assumed to be low to medium density residential uses subject to rezoning and market conditions.

 

Prior to completion of the transaction, during the due diligence period, soil contamination was discovered. Removal of the building was required to undertake remediation of the site. This resulted in City Council agreeing (8 October 2008) to contribute $435K toward the demolition of Bayview School, subject to an environmental remediation holdback of $1.2M, with the sale to close on 31 October 2008.  Since the closing, the OCDSB has demolished the school and remediated the site. A Record of Site Condition (RSC) was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on 22 July 2009.

 

On 17 November 2009, the MOE completed its initial review and has requested additional information from the OCDSB, which is to be submitted by 2 December 2009. As a result, the environmental remediation holdback of $1.2M has not been paid to the OCDSB and will not be paid out until the MOE has acknowledged that the RSC is complete.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Redevelopment Concept Plan

 

Following the closing of the sale, Real Estate Partnerships and Development Office (REPDO) staff, with assistance from both Planning and Growth Management and Parks and Recreation staff, prepared a background information package regarding the property and its potential for redevelopment.

 

On 19 May 2009, a Community-Visioning Workshop, organized by Councillor Maria McRae, was held at the Jim Durrell Community Centre wherein staff presented the background information and participants were invited to provide feedback on community needs and uses for the property and on concerns and criteria for the redevelopment of the residual lands. 

 

Participants’ comments were then summarized and used in the preparation of a follow-up Public Open House that was also organized by Councillor McRae and held on 10 September 2009 at the Jim Durrell Community Centre. A draft redevelopment concept, which broadly reflected community input to that time, was presented at that Open House. The Redevelopment Concept Plan received strong support at the Open House and includes, as shown on Document 3, the following:

 

·        Provision for a sports field and field house with the preferred location being in the southwest corner of the site (same location as the former sports field), with wide community support for both. The preferred orientation of the field is north/south as recommended by Parks and Recreation staff;

·        Residual lands to allow for redevelopment of low-density residential uses (one to two storey single detached and semi-detached and townhouses) in pockets abutting existing development at the north and south ends of the site and of medium-density residential uses (three to six storey townhouses, stacked units, and mid-rise condominium apartment dwellings) and/or institutional use (e.g. retirement home) in a pocket on the interior of the site overlooking the sports field and abutting the existing institutional (school) to the east;

·        A buffer area between the existing development and future uses will be established; this will be a condition of the sale of the residual lands.  The buffer will consist of fencing and/or landscaping features incorporated as part of the future development and may be rezoned as such;

·        Vehicular access to the site, confined to a right in / right-out, is proposed to remain in its present location at the northern end of the site off Riverside Drive;

·        A potential additional access via Springland Drive can be achieved through the acquisition of privately owned vacant land shown as Parcel “D” on Document 1 and municipally known as 2026 Springland Drive.  This access would improve the accessibility of the site for southbound traffic by eliminating potential dangerous U-turns at Walkley Road and Riverside Drive. It would also provide better local access to the proposed sports field and field house. Although there was mixed reaction to this proposal, a majority of the respondents were in support; 

·        To maintain and improve pedestrian accessibility to existing and proposed greenspace, it is proposed that the existing access off Mooney’s Bay Place at the north end of the site, shown as Parcel “B” on Document 2, be converted to pedestrian access only.  A second pedestrian access at the south end of the site from the existing condominium would remain unchanged.

 

In addition, the participants at the open houses indicated a strong desire that the redevelopment of the site take into consideration potential Sustainable Development Measures such as those set out in Document 4 attached to this report.

 

During and subsequent to the open house, several groups indicated an interest in developing a portion of the site for retirement home use.  

 

Parks and Recreation Planning and Needs

 

Parks and Recreation Master Plan

 

On 23 April 2008, Council approved the “Framework and Planning Process For A Parks And Recreation Master Plan” (ACS2008-CPS-PAR-0003) to respond to important questions such as “how the City should finance and deliver recreation services to meet the existing and future program and service needs of its residents.” 

 

A subsequent report “Parks and Recreation Master Plan - Consultation Results - Guiding Principals and Key Recommendations” (ACS2009-COS-PRC-00120 was tabled at the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) meeting of 19 November 2009. The report is to be considered at the CSPC meeting scheduled for 3 December 2009.

 

That report defines the City’s commitment, operating principles and its relationship with programs, facilities, communities and partners in providing parks and recreation services. It contains a description of the public consultation process, the main themes and concerns expressed by the public and the resulting principles and key recommendations of the master plan for the future.

  

The report notes that, during the consultation process, an overwhelming majority of respondents indicated the importance of local neighbourhood based recreation while a clear majority of respondents indicated that transportation is a factor that limits access. Accordingly, the report recommends that future planning of facilities must strike an appropriate balance between neighbourhood-based community centres and district and citywide multi-use facilities. It also recommends that the City should reinvest and invest in neighbourhood-based recreation services (directly and in partnership) and these services should be provided based on interests and needs of individual communities recognizing that one size does not fit all across the City. 

 

 

 

 

 

In that respect, the report includes recommendations as follows:

 

·        That recreation services be reasonably accessible by neighbourhood and inclusive regardless of ability to pay, culture, physical ability or age, including balancing neighbourhood-based community centers with district and citywide multi-use facilities;

·        That the City provide recreation facilities and program opportunities that reflect local community interests and capacity to delivery within a broader citywide framework, including provision of services based on interests and needs of the community with allocation of space based on a balanced approach considering changing demographics and historical patterns; and

·        That staff report back in the first quarter of 2010 with the final Parks and Recreation Master Plan that will provide a road map and timetable for the individual policies that will be coming back to Committee and Council consistent with the principles and recommendations set out above.

 

Recreation Facilities - Concept Plan for Former Bayview School Property

 

With respect to the Mooney’s Bay Neighbourhood, Parks and Recreation staff have advised that the recreational facilities, shown on the development concept plan for the former Bayview School property, are considered to be in the City’s best interest as the school’s original sports field was well used and needs to be replaced. This is supported by the Department’s sports field strategy (2004) that indicated communities within the greenbelt are severely under-serviced with full-sized sports fields. Additionally, the school site was the location of a community-operated outdoor rink that needs a support building to house hoses and a change room. Given Riverside community have no indoor meeting space in the immediate neighbourhood (serviced by the Hunt Club/Riverside Community Centre for their full-range of recreational services and programming) the community building will provide the neighbourhood with a walk-to meeting space.

 

Parks and Recreation staff have, therefore, indicated that the resulting development plan should allow for the delivery of a 222 square metre (2,400 sq. ft.) community building together with approximately 12-15 parking spaces to support the sports field (washrooms), outdoor rink (change room) and indoor community space (2 small meeting rooms with sink) at an estimated cost of approximately $925,000. The estimated cost to construct a new non-lighted sports field is $175,000 although in this case some efficiencies will be achieved by locating the sports field in the same location as the former school field. These additional recreational facilities will have a total estimated capital cost of $1.1Million and associated yearly operating and life cycle costs.

 

Conclusions

 

Concept Plan - Recreation Facilities

 

In order to achieve the recreational facility requirements set out in the concept plan as more specifically defined above by Parks and Recreation staff, REPDO staff have concluded, and are recommending, that an approximately 0.791 ha / 1.95 ac. portion of the property, shown as Parcel “A” on Document 1, should be reserved for the sports field, and an additional approximately 0.09 ha. / 0.22 ac. portion of the property, shown as Parcel “C” on Document 1, should be retained to accommodate a field house (community building) and associated parking lot.

 

Document 1 indicates two possible options for the location of Parcel “C” with the ultimate location being dependent on the development planning for Parcel “B” and the access right-of-way on Parcel “D”.

 

Site Access

 

In order to provide adequate and safe vehicular access for the contemplated redevelopment of this property in accordance with the concept plan, REPDO staff have concluded that a right-in / right-out only access be maintained in the present access location at the northern end of the site off Riverside Drive and that an additional access via Springland Drive should be provided through the acquisition of privately owned vacant land shown as Parcel “D” on Document 1 and municipally known as 2026 Springland Drive. 

 

This access would improve the accessibility of the site for southbound traffic by eliminating potential dangerous U-turns at Walkley Road and Riverside Drive. It would provide better local access to the proposed sports field and field house and a greater opportunity to allow Parcel “B”, shown on Document 1 to be divided and zoned into sub-parcels for more flexibility when selling this land.

 

In view of the above, REPDO staff are recommending that the acquisition of Parcel “D” shown on Document 1, be pursued and, if acquired, that the development criteria include for a left turn out prohibition to Springland Drive to deal with concerns raised by some of the open house participants.

 

To maintain and improve pedestrian accessibility to existing and proposed greenspace, staff have also concluded, and are recommending, that the existing vehicular access off Mooney’s Bay Place at the north end of the site, shown as Parcel “B” on Document 2, be converted to pedestrian access only.  A second pedestrian access at the south end of the site from the existing condominium will remain unchanged.

 

Redevelopment of Parcel “B”

 

Retention by the City of Parcels “A” and “C”, shown on Document 1 for recreational facilities will result in an approximately 3.173 ha (7.85 ac.) portion of the site, shown as Parcel “B” on Document, being available for redevelopment.

 

In order to ensure that Parcel “B” is developed in accordance with the Redevelopment Concept Plan that evolved from the community input at the Community Visioning Workshop and Public Open House organized by Councillor McRae, as illustrated on Document 3 attached, the  redevelopment must include provisions for the following:

 

·        Low-density residential uses (one to two storey single detached and semi-detached and townhouses) in pockets abutting existing development in the north and south ends of the site and for medium-density residential uses (three to six storey townhouses, stacked units, and mid-rise condominium apartment dwellings) and/or institutional use (e.g. retirement home) in a pocket on the interior of the site overlooking the sports field and abutting the existing institutional uses to the east (school) and south (church);

 

·        A buffer area between the existing development and future uses will be established as a condition of the sale of the residual lands.  The buffer will consist of fencing and/or landscaping features incorporated as part of the future development and may be rezoned as such;

·        Sustainable Development Measures of the type indicated in Document 4 attached;

·        REPDO staff believe that development concept for Parcel “B”, including the recommended access provisions, landscape buffer and sustainable development measures of the type shown in Document 4, can be implemented through a sale with conditions process and achieve a per acre revenue that is no less than the per acre amount paid by the City to the OCDSB.

 

Implementing the Redevelopment Concept Plan

 

As a result, staff have concluded that the following actions are required to achieve a sale of the property with provisions to ensure that the resulting development will be in accordance with the Redevelopment Concept Plan that evolved from the community input at the Community Visioning Workshop and Public Open House:

 

1.      Have a legal reference plan (R-Plan) prepared to reflect the proposed development parcels of the Redevelopment Concept Plan described in this report;

2.      Prepare and submit an application for a zoning amendment based on the parcels shown on the R-Plan and the provisions of the concept plan as described in this report;

3.      Initiate negotiations with Riverview Dev (Ottawa) Ltd for the acquisition of the Parcel “D” as shown on Document 1 and report back to CSEDC and Council in Q1 2010, on the cost and funding source for this acquisition;

4.      Prepare a sales package, including conditions that will require purchasers to:

·        Submit a development concept plan that is consistent with the provisions of the proposed zoning amendment;

·        Agree and support the zoning amendment for the property;

·        Indentify those Sustainable Development Measures that are to be included in the development; and

·        Enter into a related development agreement to ensure the development is implemented consistent with the purchaser’s concept plan and submitted with the offer, including the identified Sustainable Development Measures;

5.      Advertise and offer the property for sale in Q1 2010 based on closing the sales transaction to by no later than Q1 2011; and

6.      Report back to CSEDC and Council in Q2 2010 with recommendations for the sale of the property and the associated development agreement.

 

Recommended Action

 

As result, REPDO staff are now recommending that the City:

 

  1. Retain the portions of the property at 3071 Riverside Drive shown as Parcels “A” and “C” on Document 1 to allow for use as a sports field (approximately 0.791 ha / 1.95 ac.) and for the construction of a field house (approximately 0.09 ha / 0.22ac.) respectively as described in this report; 
  2. Pursue the acquisition of 2026 Springland Drive, shown as Parcel “D” on Document 1 attached and described as Part of Lots 24 and 25 Junction Gore, shown as part 2 on plan 4R-12424 being all of PIN 040730129, for use as an access to the property at 3071 Riverside Drive as outlined in this report and report back on costs and funding source in Q1 2010;
  3. Declare the property, shown as Parcel “B” on Document 1 attached containing an area of approximately 3.173 ha (7.85 ac.), described as part of Lot 24 Junction Gore, concession 2 (O.F.), Geographic Township of Gloucester, now in the City of Ottawa, being part of PIN 040730076, as surplus to the City’s needs; and
  4. Advertise the 3.173 ha (7.85 ac.) property, shown as Parcel “B” on Document 1 attached, for sale, subject to development conditions as described above in this report to ensure the redevelopment of this property is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

Staff will report back in Q1 2010 regarding the cost and funding source for acquiring Parcel “D”, shown on Document 1 and in Q2 2010 on a recommend sale of Parcel “B”, shown on Document 1 and the net proceeds to be realized from that sale.

 

Based on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan being finalized in Q1 2010, CESDC and Council will be in a better position to give consideration in Q2 2010 as to whether or not the sports field and field house improvements, with a total estimated capital cost of $1.1 M as noted in this report, should be funded in whole or in part from the proceeds of the sale of Parcel “B” 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The site has been remediated by OCDSB, the former owner and a Record of Site Condition (RSC) has been filed with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). On 17 November 2009, the MOE completed its initial review and has requested additional information from the OCDSB, which is to be submitted by 2 December 2009. As a result, the environmental remediation holdback of $1.2M has not been paid to the OCDSB and will not be paid out until the MOE has acknowledged that the RSC is complete.

 

It is not anticipated that the delay in MOE acknowledging completion of the RSC will have an adverse affect on the development and sales process set out in this report but in no event will REPDO staff advertise the sale of Parcel “B” until the RSC is complete to the satisfaction of the MOE.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Local residents were consulted in the preparation of the redevelopment concept plan outlined in this report. The recommendations of this report have been formulated taking into account the feedback from residents during the consultation process as described in this report.

 

Planning and Growth Management staff provided preliminary development planning guidelines to help facilitate the public consultation process. Recreational and Parks staff participated in the development concept planning process and provided specific input as described in this report.

 

Councillor McRae is aware of the intent to dispose of the residual property (Parcel “B” as shown on Document 1) for redevelopment subject to conditions that will ensure that Parcel “B” is developed in accordance with the concept plan that evolved from the community input at the Community Visioning Workshop and Public Open House organized by Councillor McRae.

 

HOUSING FIRST POLICY

 

The Official Plan policy directs that the City make land available for affordable housing and give priority for the sale or lease of surplus City-owned property for this purpose. 

 

The Housing First Policy, approved by Council on 13 July 2005, establishes priority consideration to the Affordable Housing Division in the identification of potentially surplus City-owned property, to be used in achieving the City’s affordable housing program targets.  The policy also requires that the Official Plan target of 25% affordable housing, be met on any City-owned property sold for residential development.  Where viable residential properties are disposed of without a condition requiring an affordable housing component, 25% of the proceeds from the sale are to be credited to a housing fund, to be used for the development of affordable housing elsewhere in the City.

 

The subject property is a viable property and therefore meets the affordable housing criteria outlined in the Housing First Policy.

 

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

 

There are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing any of the Recommendations arising from this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The recommendations set out in this report do not require any further funding provision at this time.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1 - Sketch plan showing the redevelopment parcels

Document 2 - Sketch showing the subject property

Document 3 - Draft site redevelopment plan

Document 4 - Potential sustainable development measures

 

DISPOSITION

 

Following approval, the REPDO will initiate the actions set out under the “Implementing the Redevelopment Concept Plan” portion of the Discussion section of this report.

 

 

 

 

DOCUMENT 1

 

DOCUMENT 2

 

 

 

DOCUMENT 3

 

Draft Site Redevelopment Plan

 

 

            Compatibility with Community comments:

•           Higher density abutting existing “I”         zone

•           Development further back from road

•           Sportsfield, rink, field house

•           Sportsfield facing Riverside

•           Access to greenspace, walkways

•           Generous buffer around development

•           Maintain existing access

•           Pursuing acquisition of land for access off Springland

•           Moneys Bay Place pedestrian only

•           Low density adjacent to existing, medium density in middle

DOCUMENT 4

 

Potential Sustainable Development Measures

 

Site Measures: 

 

•               Better ventilation and air re-circulation to reduce dependency on the air-conditioner

•               Low-water /edible landscaping, native, drought resistant plants, living fence

•               Porous Driveway surfaces (minimum 25% of driveway area)

•               Dark Skies street lighting, downward directed street lighting

•               Dust and air quality control program

•               Construction waste management plan

•               Storm Water retention plan on lot basis

•               Rainwater to be collected for irrigation (Minimum 200 litre container)

•               Urban heat island: at grade: 30% of hardscaped areas to be shaded at landscape maturity

•               70% of landscaping to be covered by native species (drought resistant vegetation)

•               Landscaping for energy conservation (for example: coniferous vegetation on north side and deciduous on south, slow growing grass)

 

Building Measures:

 

•               Buildings specifications which exceed Energy Star requirements e.g. R2000

•               Energy Star appliances and fixtures

•               Used or recycled materials (7.5 % minimum, cardboard, glass, cement fibreboard)

•               Passive Solar design, e.g. increased windows facing south.  Increased radiant heat-absorbing materials in areas adjacent to south facing windows. Decreased north facing windows. Increased insulation

•               Active Solar Hot Water Heating, and Solar domestic hot water ready      

•               Natural ventilation in lieu of air conditioning and extend roof-line to block heat from the summer sun

•               Reduction of Urban Heat Island: use of light coloured materials or green landscaped roof

•               Web Connected Peaksaver Thermostats and high efficiency furnace

•               Double insulated walls for added warmth, quiet, draft proofing, and durability or provide exterior wall insulation beyond    OBC requirement and double glazed low Argon Energy Star windows

•               35 Year Shingles or similar Low Carbon Footprint material

•               Kitchen Recycling Centre/Multiple Waste Stream Sorting

•               Locally Sourced Materials and Recyclable

•               Low flow fixtures and dual flush toilets preferred