Luskin Vancouver Trip 2016 - Final Report

COMPARINGAPPROACHES TO

SUSTAINABILITY IN VANCOUVER AND

LOS ANGELESUCLA URBAN PLANNING VANCOUVER TRIP 2016

FINAL REPORT

BY ALI ANKUDOWICH, PAIGE COLTON,TIMOTHY DOUGLAS, MATT GERTZ, AVIV KLEINMAN,

ALYSSA KOEHN, AND VIVIAN LEE

1

THANK YOU TO OUR TRIP SPONSORS:

INTRODUCTION

COMPARING VANCOUVER AND LOS ANGELES

1. HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY

2. ENERGY & WATER

3. GREEN ECONOMY & ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY

4. RESILIENCY

5. MOBILITY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ENDNOTES

REFERENCES

3

5

9

13

21

29

33

39

41

45

32

UCLA STUDENTS VISIT VANCOUVER From March 19 to March 26, 2016, our group of seven UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs students, studying for our Masters of Urban Planning, traveled to Vancouver, British, Columbia, Canada. Over the course of seven days we met with local governments, planning consultants, urban designers and architects to learn first-hand about the programs and policies guiding the City of Vancouver. To contextualize these programs, community leaders and stakeholders met with us to share the effects on their communities. To further develop the academic exchange between institutions in LA and Vancouver, we met with both the UBC School of Community and Regional Planning and members of the SFU Urban Studies program, who provided us context for local research and study.

We were motivated to take this trip as Vancouver has become internationally renowned for it’s commitment to sustainability, it’s progressive policies on infill housing and safe injection sites, and it’s leadership across the board in urban planning practice. The two trip organizers had previously studied in Vancouver and desired to make a stronger connection between the city and their studies in Los Angeles, seeing as many similarities as they do differences between the two cities.

This was the second year that such an exchange took place over spring break. This entirely student-led project aimed to build upon the success of the 2015 UCLA trip to Vancouver by taking a closer look at key issues that are relevant to Los Angeles, as outlined in the Sustainable City pLAn. We began by comparing the major themes in LA’s pLAn to the major themes in Metro Vancouver’s set of sustainability documents, including the Greenest City 2020 plan. Once the major themes were identified, using the knowledge we gained from the discussions, lectures, and presentations in Vancouver, we compared the plans to determine in what ways Los Angeles could learn from Vancouver’s progress (and in some cases, ways Vancouver could learn from Los Angeles’).

Presented in this report are our takeaways on five major themes that drive both sets of plans. We hope this document provides meaningful analysis that may be useful for the next iteration of urban sustainability frameworks.

AUTHORS

Ali Ankudowich, Paige Colton, Timothy Douglas, Matt Gertz,Aviv Kleinman, Alyssa Koehn, and Vivian Lee UCLA Masters of Urban Planning Candidates, 2017

INTRODUCTION

54

INSTITUTIONS

In order to provide context to our sustainability discussion, it is useful to identify some of the larger institutional trends that differentiate Los Angeles from Vancouver, and to some extent, American from Canadian cities. While there is no monolithic “American” or “Canadian” city, differences exist in the realms of local governance, balkanization, and land use controls (zoning). These differences have significant impacts on each city’s ability to implement and achieve sustainability targets. Much of the concepts involved in our discussion of planning for sustainability are substantially larger issues that require a higher degree of regional cooperation, and the purpose of this section is to explore the ways that Vancouver and Los Angeles address these challenges.

Historical phenomena have contributed to broad differences in the urban form of American and Canadian cities. Perhaps the most pressing is the practice of redlining, which was pervasive across much of the U.S. and has contributed to the deep economic segregation experienced in U.S. metros. There is little literature to support the notion that redlining had a significant impact on Canadian cities, and to this day, Canadian cities remain much less segregated as a result.1 2 A report by the Martin Prosperity Institute ranks the 362 largest metros in Canada and the U.S. by Overall Economic Segregation: Los Angeles ranks number 10, while Vancouver ranks at 269.3

Aaron Moore, a political scientist at the University of Winnipeg, has authored a number of articles on the topic of Canada-America comparisons and concluded that many city pairs (such as Toronto and Los Angeles, and Vancouver and Seattle) share much more in common in terms of the nexus of development and politics than they do with cities in their respective countries. When considering the effectiveness of sustainability policies, it is critical to keep in mind the partnerships that are required in order to yield successful results.

FEDERALISM, LOCAL GOVERNANCE, AND BALKANIZATION

American and Canadian cities differ fundamentally in the way that they are formed and in the powers that they are granted. To a large extent, incorporated cities in America are the bastions of local land use. The U.S. provides constitutional protections for individual private property, whereas there is no equivalent in the Canadian Constitution.4 There are typically four levels of government in the U.S.: federal, state, county, and incorporated city. Canada lacks this fourth level as most cities in Canada are more accurately described as containing aspects of both county and incorporated city. Canadian municipalities derive their power exclusively from the Provinces and are largely at their whim regarding political reorganization, amalgamation, and dissolution.

Both Vancouver and Los Angeles are charter cities, which affords each city a substantial amount of autonomy from state planning procedures. Charters are akin to an urban constitution, set out the legal framework by which the city is governed, and takes precedence over state policy in most affairs. For example, each city has its own building code, which allows for more nimble adjustments to building standards than if the cities were considered general law cities (and did not have their own municipal charter).5 Having a unique charter allows both Vancouver and Los Angeles to affect policies that are more progressive or restrictive than what would typically be prescribed under State or Provincial control. The degree to which the policies can be successfully implemented depends significantly upon the degree of regional land use and transportation planning, which we shall see is very different between the two cities.

COMPARING VANCOUVER AND LOS ANGELES

76

URBAN FORM

Vancouver and Los Angeles have very different urban forms. Over the years, the Vancouver region has made aggressive use of transportation planning to lead land use decisions. This is instantly visible when one travels along the Skytrain system: dense condominium clusters rise out of the ground and surround the stations. In Los Angeles, land use decisions have typically preceded transportation planning, and the region is left playing catch up to address ever increasing traffic congestion and sprawl.

Los Angeles is a freeway town, whereas Vancouver is the only major North American city that is not bisected by a freeway. Apart from incentivizing automobile use, freeways have left long-term scars on the cities they traverse and have divided and segregated communities. The dominance of the automobile is visible everywhere in Los Angeles, with wide boulevards and massive billboards littering the urban landscape. Vancouver contains its own share of wide roads but can also find many bicycle and bus lanes, evidence that the city has thought critically about creating streets for all users.

Los Angeles is a freeway town, whereas Vancouver is the only major North American city that is not bisected by a

freeway. Apart from incentivizing automobile use, freeways have left long-term scars on the cities they traverse and

have divided and segregated communities.

“

“

LAND USE CONTROLS AND REGIONAL PLANNING

American and Canadian cities approach land use in fundamentally different ways. The structure of local governance in the U.S. puts the bulk of the power of designating land uses squarely in the hands of local governments, particularly the incorporated city or the county. Despite the efforts at encouraging regional planning through the formation of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), local land use in the U.S. can be characterized as “balkanized” - a patchwork of uncoordinated land use decisions - and has contributed to the extensive urban sprawl that we experience here in Southern California. Californian cities are encouraged to craft General Plans that take regional concerns into account, but there is no muscle behind the suggestion. Canadian cities are required by law to craft Comprehensive Plans (Canadian equivalent to General Plans) that align with the Provinces’ plans for regional land use. The result, although not universal, is more coordinated land use in Canadian urban regions and stronger regional governments.

98

PLAN COMPARISON

Los Angeles’s goal to build 100,000 housing units by 2021 is an admirable one, and over one-quarter of these units were already granted entitlements by the end of 2015. An increase in the supply of all housing can help to mitigate the effects of a housing crunch, such as rising rents. Another effort the city could take to decrease the cost of all housing is to reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements. Parking represents an additional cost to development, one that developers and landlords recoup through higher rents. By rethinking parking requirements, the city could allow developers to provide only as much parking as people demand. More affordable units could be built without the additional cost of providing parking. One of Los Angeles’s strategies in this area is to allow for reduced parking requirements for some housing developments that are proximate to high-quality transit services. The city should continue to enact similar policies so that renter households can have access to more affordable housing options.

A major strategy in Vancouver in terms of housing policy is to concentrate development around transit stations. The last two decades have seen explosive growth in transit-oriented development around SkyTrain stations. Residential and office towers have sprung up in Vancouver’s downtown area as well as much of Metro Vancouver. This type of development may not be geared toward affordable housing due to high construction costs, but the result is still an increase in overall housing supply.

Vancouver also seeks to leverage more funding from the British Columbia government. The City has a limited amount of money in the budget to devote to housing, so reliance on provincial assistance is a reality. According to the Vancouver Housing and Homelessness Strategy, funding from the province can go toward renovation and development of supportive housing for transient populations as well as the construction of more social housing for low-income residents.9

LA Targets Metro Vancouver Targets6

- 100,000 new housing units (2021)- 275,000 new housing units (2035)- Reduce number of rent-burdened households by 10% (2025), by 15% (2035)

- Enable 2,900 new supportive housing units (2021)- Enable 5,000 new social housing units (2021)- Enable 5,000 purpose built rental and 6,000 secondary and laneway houses (2021)- Enable 20,000 market ownership units

TARGET COMPARISON

1. HOUSING &AFFORDABILITY

Due to a combination of relatively low median incomes and increasing rents, the Los Angeles housing market has been deemed the most unaffordable in the U.S. Land use and transportation policy have resulted in a sprawling metropolitan area with an outdated zoning code. Single-family suburban homes dominated much of the development after World War II, engulfing large amounts of land in relatively unintensive development. While the Los Angeles metropolitan area is the most dense region in the country, the city’s housing supply has constantly failed to keep pace with demand. Skyrocketing rents have increased the number of rent-burdened families (those who spend more than 30% of their income on rent), and the number of people at risk of becoming homeless is also on the rise. Los Angeles already has a large homeless population, and the city’s housing crisis may only exacerbate this problem.

It is true that Vancouver7 and Los Angeles8 are two very different cities in terms of population size and demographics. These factors aside, both municipalities have extremely low vacancy rates and relatively high rates of rent-burdened households. Renters make up a majority of households in both Vancouver and Los Angeles. Both cities also have limited access to funding for affordable housing and must rely on their respective state/provincial and federal governments for a great deal of affordable development funds. Finally, Vancouver and Los Angeles are land-constrained municipalities. Los Angeles is limited in its geography and topography by the Pacific Ocean and various mountains. Vancouver has similar constraints as well as the urban growth boundary beyond which there can be no development on agricultural land. These limitations have resulted in a suboptimal level of housing supply, but both cities have taken steps to address this issue.

1110

Figure 1.2 - Approved LWHs in RS-1 and RS-5 Zones to February 201311

TAKEAWAYS

Laneway housing is not a directly transferrable concept to Los Angeles, but the concept of hidden density certainly is.

Single-family homes in Los Angeles require garages on their lots, but many of these garages sit empty or are used for storage. These garages could be converted to granny flats/accessory dwelling units in order to provide extra income for families and to increase the supply of affordable housing in the city. A major hurdle to this policy is Los Angeles’s parking requirements. A family wanting to convert a garage to another housing unit would have to provide an extra off-street parking space for the new unit in addition to replacing the two covered parking spaces, as required by the City. Amending these requirements could facilitate the development of garage conversions and thereby allow for more housing units in the city.

•

•

•

VANCOUVER LANEWAY HOUSING

During our time in Vancouver, our team met with an architect at Lanefab Design/Build, a firm that specializes in the planning and construction of laneway houses. Alleys are Los Angeles’s laneway equivalent. Laneway housing describes smaller, detached homes located where a garage would normally go on a single-family lot. Much of Vancouver’s housing that is zoned for single-family residential has spare capacity for extra units on each lot.

During our meeting, we learned that constructing an extra unit on one lot can benefit families with grown children looking for affordable housing as well as elderly couples looking to downsize and rent out the larger house. Because homeowners already have claim to the land, the construction process would not be a prohibitive cost to development. The untapped supply of single-family homes is a great resource to increase the density of the city in a cost-effective and politically feasible manner. Lanefab also roughly follows passive house standards for its developments, which means that this new source of housing is also very energy efficient.

In this single-family zone, Vancouver mandates one off-street parking space for a one- or one-and-a-half-story dwelling unit, but there is no requirement as to whether the space should be in a garage or even covered at all. The parking space may be used for any of the dwellings on the lot. Nearly 2% of single-family homes in Vancouver have laneway houses, and 35% have accessory dwelling units (second suites).10 It is reasonable to state that relatively low development costs and flexible parking requirements have contributed to the continuing success of hidden density in Vancouver.

Figure 1.1 - Learning about laneway housing with Bryn Davidson at LaneFab

The untapped supply of single-family homes is a greatresource to increase the density of the city in acost-effective and politically feasible manner.

“ “

1312

LA Targets Metro Vancouver Targets

ENERGY

- Install at least 1 MW of solar on LA Convention Center rooftop (2017) - Increase cumulative total MW of energy storage capacity to at least 1,654 MW (2025)- Increase cumulative total megawatts (MW) of local solar photovoltaic (PV) power (900-1500 MW by 2025; 1500- 1800 MW by 2035)

- Reduce community-based GHG emissions by 33% from 2007 levels (2020)- Derive 100% of energy used in Vancouver from renewable sources (2050)- Reduce GHG emissions by 80% below 2007 levels (2050)

GREEN BUILDING

- Expand the Better Buildings Challenge (BBC) to over 60 million square feet and avoid 1250 GWh of energy use due to efficiency programs (2017)- Reduce energy use per square foot — for all building types — by 30%; energy used in buildings is greatest source of GHG in LA (2035)

- Reduce energy use and GHG emissions in existing buildings by 20% over 2007 levels (2020)- Require all buildings constructed from 2020 onward to be carbon neutral in operations (2020)

WATER

- Fund and begin the San Fernando Groundwater Basin clean-up and reduce per capita potable water use by 20% (2017)- Reduce the purchase of imported water by 50% (2025)- Source 50% of water locally (2035)

- Meet or beat the strongest of British Columbian, Canadian, or appropriate international water quality standards and guidelines (2020)- Reduce per capita water consumption by 33% from 2006 levels (2020)

TARGET COMPARISON

into alternative sustainable energy sources.16 Additionally, British Columbia has a carbon tax charged on purchase or use of fuel in the province.17 18 These supports from higher level jurisdictions help facilitate the shift to more sustainable forms of energy in the cities of British Columbia.

The sustainable energy targets of Los Angeles also appear to be influenced by similar contextual factors. For instance, like Vancouver, Los Angeles is zoned primarily for single-family housing with pockets of multi-family residential around the downtown area, as Figure 2.2 shows. When the maximum densities are considered in conjunction with the fact that Los Angeles receives more than 250 days of sunshine per year, it becomes clear that Los Angeles is well suited for rooftop solar energy.19 Another feature that Los Angeles shares with Vancouver is that the State of California has a gas excise tax, as well as a carbon tax in place through its Cap and Trade program; for the latter, firms must purchase permits in order to emit carbon.

Lastly, the different climates between Vancouver and Los Angeles affect the amount of rainfall each area can expect, which can affect their targets related to water quantity and quality. Vancouver tends to receive more rainfall than Los Angeles, nearly three times as much on average.20 21 22 Los Angeles is also in the midst of one of its worst droughts on record, which has spurred mandatory water use reduction measures from the state level.23 24

2. ENERGY& WATER

Architecture, built form, action on renewable energy from higher level jurisdictions, and climate all influence the energy context for both the City of Vancouver and the City of Los Angeles. This context informs the types of renewable energies emphasized in the plans, as well as how sustainable energy targets are devised and implemented.

The density and building materials of the built landscape in the Vancouver region have important implications for sustainable energy. The majority of land in Vancouver is zoned for single family homes (as shown in Figure 2.1), indicating that there is a swath of low-density residential development with pockets for high-density development. The glass residential high-rises of the downtown and North Vancouver area are a striking feature of the city’s built form. Tall residential towers are also a prominent component of downtown Surrey’s new developments. The large amount of glass used in construction of these high-rises leads to the issue of energy leakage, since a relatively high amount of heat loss tends to occur through the windows of the building.12 13

Sustainable energy targets are also influenced by decisions made at the provincial level, such as access to hydroelectric power. For example, British Columbia’s Clean Air Act has mandated that the electrical utility BC Hydro produce as much electricity as British Columbia needs from facilities within the province, with the objective that 93% of the total generation comes from clean sources.14 15 Thus, much of the energy in the province comes from a relatively low-carbon source (although there are other environmental impacts to consider). Despite its low-carbon nature, hydro-electric power is potentially insecure due to climate change and uncertainty around reservoir levels. For this reason, the City of Surrey is looking

1514

Figure 2.2 - Zoning in the City of Los Angeles, 2009

PLAN COMPARISON

Vancouver has a fairly strong agenda to use 100% renewable energy sources by 2050. Part of the ambition of this goal may stem from its current access to hydro-electric power. Vancouver is also using neighborhood sustainable energy districts to provide more localized forms of energy in multi-unit dwelling residential areas. For example, the False Creek Energy District in Vancouver transfers heat from sewage to provide hot water and heating for 4.3 million square feet of residential, commercial, and industrial spaces in the district.25 Read more about this energy district in the “City of Surrey and False Creek Energy District” section.

Los Angeles has targeted a different approach, promoting primarily solar energy and energy storage in its sustainability plan due to an abundance of sunny days and rooftop space; it proposes a target of a certain number of megawatts (e.g. 900-1500 MW by 2025) as opposed to meeting a percentage of energy supply generated by sustainable means. However, the district energy approach of the Vancouver region could prove valuable for higher density areas in Los Angeles, such as downtown. This approach could help particularly in meeting hot water needs in a sustainable way if the City focused on sewage heat capture, which would supplement the electrical energy generation of PV solar panels.

Not only is energy supply a consideration, but also demand. One piece of the energy demand discussion is green building design to reduce residential energy consumption. Vancouver’s plan requires all buildings built from 2020 onwards to be carbon neutral, another ambitious goal. The energy

Figure 2.1 - Land Use in the City of Vancouver, with Frequent Transit Network, 2015

1716

In terms of sustainable water practices, Vancouver’s Citywide Integrated Rainwater Management Plan is still getting off the ground; it was presented to the City Council in April of this year.27 In the Greenest City plan, reduced water consumption and superior water quality are emphasized, but our contact at the City mentioned that the water quality focus is relatively new and the perception of the relative abundance of water has made progress on water conservation goals a slow-going process. While the Greenest City plan notes the significant rainfall and freshwater sources, it also states that one of the challenges to conservation is the misperception that the supply is abundant; the City needs to prepare for future conditions of a growing population and economy, as well as the prospect of climate change. These conditions will place a greater strain on the water supply in upcoming years.

In contrast, Los Angeles has had to address water shortages due to significant drought conditions. As the Annual Report for Los Angeles’s sustainability plan notes, the City has nearly met its target of a 20% reduction in water consumption a year ahead of time.28 Aside from this target related to the amount of water being used, there are also goals related to water quality. Two major targets in the sustainability plan relate to cleaning local water and relying more on that supply to decrease water imports. The City also developed a Water Quality Compliance Master Plan in 2009 that targets water quality issues; it is slated for implementation for the 20 to 30 years after its adoption.29

Thus, the City of Los Angeles has made significant gains in water efficiency and has big plans to improve local water quality. On the other hand, Vancouver’s stormwater management plan still appears to be getting off the ground. Moreover, Vancouver has a fairly different water profile than Los Angeles. Due to the different circumstances in each city, Vancouver seems less able at this point to inform action that should be considered in Los Angeles.

The City of Los Angeles has made significant gainsin water efficiency and has big plans to improve

local water quality. On the other hand, Vancouver’s stormwater management plan still appears to be

getting off the ground.

“

“

districts are certainly a part of the strategy to meet this goal, but Vancouver is also looking at programs to encourage green building programs and adjustments to its Building By-Law for retrofit and energy efficiency requirements. The Greenest City plan notes that a majority of large new office and condominium buildings are being built to LEED Gold standards, but the plan also mentions the Passive House energy efficient design as a recognized standard of excellence for developers required to build to a green standard. The Passive House design requires an 80-90% reduction in energy use for heating as compared to typical North American practices.26 Vancouver’s Renewable City Strategy also mentions Passive House as a design philosophy for City buildings. Passive House also came up during our visit at LaneFab, indicating that there were private sector design firms interested in this building standard.

Los Angeles has set the objectives related to green building design standards at the LEED silver level. It also aims to expand its Better Building Challenge, which requires a 20% reduction in water and energy savings in existing buildings by 2020. These slightly more attainable standards might allow for more widespread adoption but a more progressive standard, such as a Passive House building, could act as more of a showcase project in the city to demonstrate more of what is possible in green building design. Los Angeles may want to look into where such a project would be feasible.

Figure 2.3 - Touring the Southeast False Creek Neighborhood Energy Utility

1918

Figure 2.4 - Visiting new developments in Downtown Surrey

CITY OF SURREY AND THE FALSE CREEK ENERGY DISTRICT

We had the opportunity to tour downtown Surrey to learn more about their energy district and water treatment strategies. For its downtown energy district, a number of potential renewable fuel sources have been studied to incorporate at build-out, including industrial waste heat recovery, sewer heat recovery, geoexchange, solar thermal heat, refrigeration heat recovery, biomass, combined heat and power, and sources to be developed in the future.30 Part of the district was planned in 2013 to supply geothermal energy to the City Hall, City Centre Library and adjacent buildings.31 During our site tour of the downtown area, we viewed infrastructure temporarily set up to provide energy to downtown buildings from methane derived from compost until full build-out. In addition to district energy, we learned about components of their water quality strategy. The City is aiming to support salmon-bearing streams in the city and is planning a complementary stormwater treatment effort involving on-site tank treatment of stormwater, which will then flow to retention ponds.

We then had the opportunity to meet with City of Vancouver officials about their Southeast False Creek Neighborhood Energy Utility district, which includes the Olympic Village, and tour the central facility. This district recycles low-grade heat from sewage (a mix of greywater, blackwater, and stormwater) using a reverse refrigerant loop to create hot water and heating for buildings in the district which was recently up-zoned in terms of density. There is only a 2% energy loss from capture to energy delivery due to excellent pipe insulation. The system has two dedicated maintenance staff and is backed up by generators to ensure reliable energy production. The project cost around $30 million with pipes and has a fixed rate of return between 6 and 8%. The accompanying rates for consumers are less expensive than electricity, but more than gas.

These visits allowed us to see in better detail how these energy districts work in real-world settings. These districts appear to be a viable option for higher density areas and areas getting up-zoned in Los Angeles to meet hot water needs for residents. Providing an alternative such as this one would free up solar panel capacity for electric energy needs.

TAKEAWAYS

Los Angeles can emphasize energy districts more in its plan, particularly for higher density areas such as downtown.

Los Angeles should explore where Passive House projects might be applicable in the city to better showcase the extent of possibilities in the green design realm.

Vancouver may not inform Los Angeles’ action as much on water management due to the fact that its Citywide Integrated Rainwater Management Plan is relatively recent, Los Angeles has already made significant progress in water issues and has ambitious plans to improve water quality, and the two cities have fairly different water profiles.

•

•

•

These [energy] districts appear to be a viable option for higher density areas and areas getting up-zoned in Los

Angeles to meet hot water needs for residents. “ “

2120


- Install 1,000 new public EV charging stations (2017)- 0 unhealthy pollution days (2025)- Reduce asthma-related ER visits to 14/1000 children (2025)- Reduce asthma-related ER visits to 8/1000 children (2035)- 56% of Angelenos within ½ mile of park/open space- Increase the number of urban agricultural sites by 50% above 2013 baseline (2035)- Increase average walk score to 75 (2025)- Create 72,500 green jobs (2025), 150,000 (2035)- Increase green investment by $750 million (2025), $2 billion (2035)- Raise minimum wage to $13.25 (2017)- Create 20,000 green jobs (2017)- Attract $100 million in investment through LA Cleantech Incubator (2017)

- Double the number of green jobs over 2010 (2020)- Double the number of companies that are actively engaged in greening their operations over 2011 levels (2020)- Help transform the False Creek Flats into the greenest place to work in the world (Action item)- Develop a strategy and action plan to attract green investment capital (Action item)- Organize and host targeted business trade missions (inbound and outbound) and leverage large conferences and events (local and global) to grow the green economy (Action item)- All Vancouver residents live within a five minute walk of a park, greenway, or other green space- Increase the number of urban farming businesses from 18 to 35 (2020)

TARGET COMPARISON

Figure 3.1 - Income Polarization: Change in Distribution of Metro Van Personal Income, 1976-201136

PLAN COMPARISON

Green EconomyLos Angeles is targeting job creation and workforce development as a way to deepen the connection between the economy and the environment. The City is leaning on its extensive adoption of solar energy and commitment to expanding solar energy as a way to cement job growth for skilled tradespeople, maintenance workers, engineers, and other related employment. In order to incentivize innovation in this area, Los Angeles is supporting its Cleantech innovator, located in the downtown Arts and Innovation district, by supporting warehouse conversion and allowing for more flexible zoning. Vancouver does not yet have such an incubator, but is looking to launch a facility that will enable the city’s entrepreneurs to experiment and innovate with the City’s support. These types of programs provide a more hospitable entrepreneurial environment and entice people to remain in the region.

3. GREEN ECONOMY &ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY

The economies of Vancouver and Los Angeles share many common attributes: both cities are major tourist destinations, are centers of international and domestic trade, and contain major entertainment industries and thriving high-tech sectors. Both cities have strikingly low unemployment rates yet these benefits have not been experienced equitably. Income inequality is rising in both regions32 33 and median income in both cities are below their respective national averages ($49,682 for LA vs. $53,482 US-wide34 and $55,027 for Vancouver vs. $57,587 Canada-wide[35]). There are significant poverty and homelessness issues in both regions. The green economy consists of jobs at varying skill levels, which helps to ensure that everybody benefits from strategic policy directions and investments in this sector.

Environmental equity is a major concern for both Vancouver and Los Angeles. In Los Angeles, low income and minority populations disproportionately reside in areas with low greenspace access and poor air quality. Within the city, income drops moving eastward from the ocean, and these areas are more likely to be classified as “highly burdened” by the CalEnviroScreen tool.37 Los Angeles contains a large amount of greenspace and parkland, but this is largely contained within the canyons and not accessible to those without vehicles. Vancouver’s landscape is dotted with parks and the City has taken huge steps to ensure that residents can easily access the city’s waterfront through its many beaches and more than 17 miles of seawall.

The baseline for the two cities is quite different, so it is important to keep this in mind when considering the success of these policies. In 2014, 92% of Vancouverites were within a 5 minute walk (¼ mile) of a park or greenspace.38 In Los Angeles, about 55% of residents are currently within a 10 minute (½ mile) walk of a park or greenspace.

2322

Figure 3.2 - Vancouver Access to Public Green Space39

Figure 3.3 - Park Access and Schools for Children of Color Living in Poverty with No Access to a Car

Access to Greenspace: Expanding Parks and the Urban CanopyIn order to achieve its goals, Vancouver has embarked on an ambitious park creation and rewilding plan. This includes a new park that is being built along the Yukon Street corridor with the side benefit of containing a bike route. The City is also prioritizing the southern sector of the city, which has long had less adequate access to greenspace than average residents. South Vancouver borders the Fraser River, and this has historically been an industrial area with central importance to the logging industry. New mixed use developments in this district has spurred a revival of the Fraser River, and the City plans to acquire four hectares (~10 acres) of parkland to improve access to greenspace. Additionally, the City is in the process a creating a new ten-hectare (~24 acres) park system near the Southeastern Vancouver-Burnaby border to improve access to nature for residents in this historic district. Vancouver is uniquely positioned to achieve its goals because of its elected parks board - the only elected municipal parks board in Canada.

Los Angeles is embarking on a similarly ambitious plan. The Los Angeles River is a channelized river that is the center of a massive revitalization plan. As part of an initiative to expand access to nature for low income communities in particular, Mayor Garcetti has pledged to restore more than 11 miles of the river and improve public access along the entire length of the river within the City of LA.40 In addition to this plan, LA plans to expand its 50 Parks LA Initiative - a plan to build 50 parks in underserved areas of Los Angeles to address the inequitable distribution of open space.41 As of 2015, 31 parks have been completed (~25 acres), 6 are under construction and 17 further sites have been identified.

Aside from parks and open spaces, Vancouver has plans to expand its urban canopy. Canopies clean the air and absorb rainwater, and help to combat the urban heat island effect. Vancouver plans to grow its canopy to 22% by 2050. The City launched TreeKeepers in 2013 as a non-profit partnership between Tree City and Environmental Youth Alliance as a strategy to engage youth in the urban greening process. This program has supported the planting of 37,000 trees on private property and in parks and streets. The plan targets 150,000 trees by 2050.

Los Angeles does not have a tree planting policy, but is a city that would benefit from expanding its urban canopy. Los Angeles has the highest urban heat island effect in California,42 but the bulk of the city is lined with iconic Mexican Fan Palms, which do not provide shelter and require a substantial amount of watering. However, the City plans to develop a tree and canopy registry to assist future development of the urban forest.43

2524

Vancouver, in comparison to Los Angeles, has a much less severe air quality problem. Part of the explanation is that the regional population and population density is lower in Vancouver than in Los Angeles.50 The per capita car ownership rate in Vancouver is also substantially lower than in Los Angeles because of a confluence of factors: - Parking requirements are significantly lower or reduced in Vancouver which reduces the incentive to drive - Vancouver has encouraged car sharing services like ZipCar and Car2go to grow by provided them with parking and including car sharing requirements into developments - Funding a high quality and high frequency transit system that overlays the city like a grid and provides easy access to most areas of the region

Similar to LA, Vancouver planned to reach 0 days of non-attainment by 2020, but as of 2014 had already reached this goal. Childhood asthma is not of major concern, nor are other respiratory related illnesses. Vancouver does struggle with seasonal air quality particulate contaminants as a result of wildfires that occur in the mountainous and interior areas of British Columbia. There are roughly 300 public and private EV charging stations in Vancouver, and the City, like Los Angeles, has included provisions in its building by-law requiring mixed-use and commercial buildings to be EV ready.51

Local FoodGrowing food locally is a multidimensional approach to building social equity and community relationships. The ‘food desert’ effect in Los Angeles is stark. More than 400,000 low-income people in Los Angeles -- 11% -- live more than a half mile from fresh food.52 Los Angeles’ two pronged approach targets business and individuals. With respect to businesses, the City is working with the California FreshWorks private-public partnership fund to support local businesses in providing fresh food to residents. With respect to individuals, the City is breaking down barriers to urban agriculture, working primarily with the federally designated ‘Promise Zone’. At the outset of the plan, there were 494 urban agriculture sites in LA. This number has not grown, despite a pledge to reach 618 sites by 2025. This initiative is being rolled out in cooperation with city-owned buildings and lots to ensure that all locations are being considered to ensure maximum access. Areas of growth include reducing barriers to backyard chickens and other forms of micro farming. Farmers markets are popular in Los Angeles, and provide an opportunity for farmers to connect directly with the consumers of their food and cut out the middle-man, but access to farmers markets is also unequal, with South LA left relatively unserved.53

Vancouver has had a long tradition of community gardens and local food production. The City has supported community agriculture programs by provided free fruit trees and providing space at public parks for plots. Since 2010 there has been a 36% increase in neighborhood food assets (defined as garden plots, farmers markets, community orchards, community composting, community kitchens, produce stands and urban farms).54 These improvements have been supported to Greenest City-funded outreach programs to raise awareness about healthy food and resources in the Vancouver area. The City is also using local food as a community-building project, partnering with cultural organizations within the city’s significant Chinese community to share knowledge and practices surrounding Chinese ingredients and cuisine. These types of programs have the potential to bridge cultural gaps and encourage more interaction between different groups in the city.

Vancouver has had a long tradition of community gardens and local food production. Since 2010 there has been a

36% increase in neighborhood food assets.“ “

Air Quality and HealthAir quality is both a concern and a challenge for urban areas the world over, and the Los Angeles and Vancouver regions are no exception. Both are major port centers and handle 17.1%44 and 19%45, respectively, of their country’s total international trade. Port-related activities generate a significant amount of diesel fine particulate matter (PM2.5), the burden of which falls on those residing near ports or trucking routes.

In Los Angeles, 90% of air pollution comes from mobile sources, and this has guided the policy approach of the City in its attempts to combat this issue. As a region known for its prolific automobile usage and goods movement, it is no coincidence that the goals outlined in LA’s pLAn point to electric (EVs) and other zero emissions vehicles as a major component of the air quality improvement program. To incentivize the use of EVs, the City has pledged to install more than 1,000 public charging stations by 2017, with 350 currently in place around the city (Figure 3.4), and requires that all single and multifamily residential developments be EV ready.46 Los Angeles County has also made a series of major transit interventions in recent years in the form of rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) projects, which have enhanced the effectiveness LA Metro’s low emissions transit that moves more than 1.3 million people per weekday.47 The passing of Measure R was a huge boon to public transportation, and will be followed with a second ballot measure in the fall of 2016. Air quality is a major concern for Los Angeles because its high rate of child asthma-related ER visits is related to its similarly high annual count of days of nonattainment - 40 in 2015. Nonattainment refers to days when LA’s air quality does not meet stringent standards implemented by the California Air Resources Board.48

To incentivize the use of EVs, the City has pledged to install more than 1,000 public charging stations

by 2017, with 350 currently in place around the city.“ “

Figure 3.4 - PlugShare.com map of EV charging stations in Los Angeles49

2726

Figure 3.6 - Meeting with the CityStudio Vancouver staff team

Furthermore, we visited with Duane Elverum and Jen McCrae of CityStudio, which is a collaborative program engaging the City of Vancouver and the region’s educational institutions to provide an immersive learning environment where students are given course credit and provided with mentorship and city support to test drive initiatives that the city doesn’t have the time or budget to support. Projects such as the Britannia Food Share,56 which engaged food businesses in Vancouver with a youth meal program to divert edible food from landfills and educate youth about healthy cooking and food production and the Outdoor Learning Project,57 which supports the Vancouver Parks Board’s rewilding initiative is helping to build infrastructure to support outdoor education for all Vancouverites, are examples of low budget but potentially high impact projects that engage the entrepreneurial and creative talents of youth to improve their own communities.

TAKEAWAYS

Including EV-ready requirements in development codes will help to incentivize the switch to EVs for auto users.

Partner with educational institutions to allow students to apply skills to test-drive innovations with limited budgets and reduced bureaucratic hurdles.

Expand parklet program to reclaim parking spots for more healthful uses•

•

•

VANCOUVER’S GREEN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Our visits in Vancouver touched on many of the aspects of the green economy and environmental equity. At the Southeast False Creek Neighbourhood Energy Utility, we toured a facility that harnessed the heat and flow of sewage to generate heat and hot water for an entire neighborhood. The engineers that are employed as a result of this facility are directly involved with the green economy. A pair of architects from Francl Architects joined us on our tour, and afterwards walked us around the Creekside Community Recreation Centre -- a LEED platinum certified structure. Not only was the facility designed by a firm that places environmental stewardship as a core value, but the building provides space for community gatherings and businesses that benefit from the building’s small ecological footprint.

Also involved in the green economy is Lanefab, which is a design/build firm that focuses on laneway (alleyway) housing in Vancouver. Building in Vancouver’s laneways is one of the ways that the City is increasing its housing supply without sprawl. Lanefab’s designs are rooted in environmental sustainability, and while they have not yet actively adopted the Passivhaus model of housing construction, the firm maintains very high building standards. The nature of the housing construction supply chain means that Lanefab’s housing construction activities cast a wide net and channel green dollars to a variety of producers nationwide.

Our visit to Translink informed us of the breadth of activities that the agency is involved with. Translink is responsible not just for transit but also for most roads and bridges in the Metro Vancouver region. Transit is discussed further in the Mobility section. Translink has the unique mandate of managing an essentially finite road supply with increasing population. Transit is heavily used in Vancouver, but there has been an increasing interest in peak-hour road pricing.55 Some of the bridges in Vancouver are currently tolled, but the lack of road pricing and resultant underpriced auto trips have helped contribute to rising congestion and pollution in the region, even after accounting for the improved efficiency of modern automobiles.

Figure 3.5 - Local Farmers Markets, according to Google search

2928

PLAN COMPARISON

Based on examining the existing resiliency and adaptation plans of both metro regions, the City of Los Angeles is pushing for and publicizing more specific strategies, while Vancouver is taking a more comprehensive view of these issues. This is in part due to the fact that Vancouver is ahead of Los Angeles in developing a comprehensive climate change adaptation strategy.

Earthquake PreparednessWhile both Los Angeles and Vancouver are actively working on earthquake preparedness, their most recent earthquake resiliency plans have very different focuses. Los Angeles’ plan addresses the city’s top three greatest earthquake vulnerabilities, while Vancouver’s takes a more comprehensive approach to preparedness.

Los Angeles released its “Resilience by Design” report in 2014, outlining necessary action items for earthquake resiliency developed by the Mayoral Seismic Safety Task Force. The primary goals presented in this report include retrofitting existing buildings, and ensuring water system and telecommunication infrastructure are resilient.59 The city also recently passed a law mandating the retrofit of pre-1980 buildings (before building code standards addressed earthquake resiliency).

The City of Vancouver also has an Earthquake Preparedness Strategy (2014), most notably focusing on assessing risks of an earthquake, reducing the risk of damage, and preparing to respond to an earthquake.60 Reducing the risk of damage not

LA Targets Metro Vancouver Targets58

- Install 10,000 new cool roofs (2017)- Reduce heat island effect by 1.7°F (2025), 3°F (2035)

- Minimize rainfall related flooding and associated consequences- Increase the resilience of Vancouver’s infrastructure and assets to coastal flooding and erosion- Increase Vancouver’s capacity to respond to extreme weather events and recover effectively- Reduce safety and health risks for the homeless and low- income population due to inclement weather- Minimize per capita water consumption (Reduce per capita water consumption by 33% from 2006 levels by 2020)- Minimize morbidity and mortality during heat waves- Increase resilience of the built environment to future climate conditions- Increase the long-term health and vigour of urban forests, green spaces, and trees- Incorporate adaptation considerations in city business

TARGET COMPARISON

4. RESILIENCY

Resilience and adaptation to earthquakes and climate change are important considerations for both Metropolitan Vancouver and Los Angeles. The two cities have long faced the threat of earthquakes, and in fact Los Angeles is one of the most at-risk cities in the world to earthquakes.

In terms of climate change, both regions predict longer and hotter heatwaves and rising sea levels. Vancouver also faces increased precipitation and temperatures, hotter and drier summers, and more intense and frequent wind and rain storms. Los Angeles faces bigger wildfires. As a result, both metropolitan regions recognize the importance of mitigating and adapting to climate change.

3130

VISITING SURREY

During our visit to the City of Surrey, staff briefly discussed the city’s plans for climate change adaptation. Surrey is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada and is the proud home of approximately 900 miles of waterways and five species of salmon and trout. This also makes the city extremely vulnerable to sea level rise and more intense and frequent rain storms. In addition to upgrading existing dykes and building a sea dam, the city has also begun limiting development in particular flood-prone areas. For example, in 2008, the city formally restricted development in the Nicomekl and Serpentine River Floodplain,61 and the City’s 2013 Community Plan lays out policies that restricts development in other flood prone and steep slope hazard areas unless damage mitigation requirements are met.62

In addition to upgrading existing dykes and building a sea dam, the city has also begun limiting development in

particular flood-prone areas. “ “

TAKEAWAYS

An initial climate change adaptation plan does not have to solve all problems at once. Initial strategies can have the goal of increasing the understanding of impacts and how future strategies can be integrated into existing city structures.

True resilience and adaptation planning are not “sexy” topics. While prioritizing and publicizing certain high-profile strategies may increase public awareness of the issues, cities should be wary of making only surface-level progress on the issues at hand instead of expending the necessary effort to comprehensively assess and address reality.

•

•

only considers water and telecommunication systems and retrofitting existing buildings, but also takes into account sewer and energy systems as well.

Climate Change AdaptationLos Angeles and Vancouver are in different places regarding climate change adaptation. The City of Vancouver, for example, has developed an adaptation strategy intended to work alongside its sustainability plan. While Los Angeles’s adaptation goals seem more specific than Vancouver’s (installing cool roofs and reducing the heat island effect), Los Angeles has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy for adaptation.

In 2012, Vancouver published a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, which works in conjunction with the Greenest City Action Plan. The Adaptation Strategy summarizes the anticipated climate change impacts on the city, assesses these impacts using a risk and vulnerability assessment, and lays out primary and supporting adaptation actions that address these impacts. These primary actions “focus on incorporating adaptation as a consideration or key driver into existing and planned projects.” In general, many of the actions revolve around understanding how climate change will affect the city and incorporating adaptation strategies into current planning, design, and emergency management. Vancouver is not the only city in the metro area with an adaptation plan: The City of Surrey has a Climate Adaption Strategy (2013) that is part of a broader Community Climate Action Strategy (2013). Approximately one-third of the Surrey’s land area lies in a floodplain and has 30 miles of shoreline. Surrey developed its plan using the same framework as Vancouver and identifies 91 actions to increase the resilience of their community.

Los Angeles’ goals help prepare the city for natural disasters and reduce vulnerability to climate change through its long-term target of reducing the urban heat island effect and improving the city’s ability to “return to normal” after a natural disaster. While the City of LA has not yet developed a comprehensive climate action and adaptation plan, it is currently working with the University of Southern California and the University of California, Los Angeles to conduct research on how climate change will affect the city.

3332

PLAN COMPARISON

One of the most ambitious target goals of the mobility section of LA’s pLAn is to increase bike/ped/transit mode share to 35% by 2025, and to 50% by 2035. This is comparable to Vancouver’s goal for its citizens to make the majority (over 50%) of trips by foot, bicycle, and public transit, by the year 2020. According to Vancouver’s plan, “How we move around a city makes a big difference to our quality of life. The air we breathe, the amount of land we need, our physical health and well-being, and the cost of travel are all impacted by our transportation choices. Green transportation includes transit, as well as active transportation like cycling and walking. It is also about the places we see and experiences we have on the way to our destinations.” Vancouver’s goal is much less of a stretch than LA’s; according to Vancouver’s plan, 40% of trips to and within the city were by foot, bike, or transit in 2008, which is an increase of 7% since 1994. The Canada Line’s opening in 2009 has likely raised that mode share percentage, but no City data collection has been made since. According to LA’s pLAn at the time of publishing, only 16% of Angelenos walked, biked, or took public transit on their daily work commute.


- Establish LA Metro integrated bike share system (2017)- Increase multimodal connections at 10 rail stations (2017)- Reduce VMT/capita/day by 5% (2025), 10% (2035)- Increase bike/ped/transit mode share to 35% (2025), 50% (2035)- Increase carshare mode share to 2% (2025), 5% (2035)

Key Strategies to 2020:- Make active transportation choices such as walking and cycling feel safe, convenient, comfortable and fun for all ages and abilities- Plan for complete communities to encourage increased walking and cycling and to support improved transit service- Support transit improvements to increase capacity and ensure that service is fast, frequent, reliable, fully accessible, and comfortable- Make the majority (over 50%) of trips by foot, bicycle, and public transit- Reduce average distance driven per resident by 20% from 2007 levels

TARGET COMPARISON

5. MOBILITY

Vancouver and Los Angeles share at least one trait in common: They are each the most congested cities in Canada and the US, respectively. On average, Angelenos spend 64 hours sitting in traffic each year.64 Vancouverites spent 84 hours wasted in traffic each year.65 However, one major difference between the two cities is the reliance on freeways. Los Angeles has seen freeway development and expansion since the construction of the Western U.S.’s first freeway, the Arroyo Seco Parkway in 1940. Conversely, Vancouverites protested the city’s first plans for freeway construction in the 1950s, and the city’s bylaws presently protect the city from freeway development. In order to reduce congestion in both cities, actions must be taken to provide alternative modes of transportation for commuters.

TransLink serves as Metropolitan Vancouver’s statutory authority responsible for regional transportation networks. TransLink operates the region’s extensive rail, bus, ferry, road, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation networks. This agency shares common aspects with LA Metro in terms of breadth of jurisdiction and regional planning functions but also hosts many differences in terms of funding sources and operation methodology. TransLink is responsible for project planning, financing, and management but delivers service via several contracted private operating companies.

3534

TRANSLINK VISIT

We first visited the TransLink headquarters where we were provided with a wholesome view of TransLink’s extensive authority and operations throughout the region and its goals for the future. Many of these goals aligned with Vancouver’s Greenest City 2020 Action Plan goals of increased public transit and active transportation use, as well as lowered carbon emissions and overall sustainability improvements. We also visited the SkyTrain Operations and Maintenance Centre where we learned about the details and benefits of these fully-automated trains on grade-separated tracks. The Skytrain operates three lines and a total of 47 stations, running on 68.7 km (42.7 mi) of track. SkyTrain’s first line opened in time for Vancouver’s Expo ’86, and has been expanding ever since. The construction of the northeast Evergreen Extension is currently underway, with plans to become operational in 2017. The system’s full automation has afforded its consistent on-time performance. Automated trains allow for immensely improved OTP (on-time performance), safety, and passenger comfort. Trains can run on significantly shorter headways due to shortened signaling distances between trains. The full automation relies on three Vehicle Control Computers, which each house three processors that must ‘agree’ with each other for each command that is sent through the computers. Therefore, there is very little room for human error on the control side. Additionally, the computerized acceleration and deceleration controls allow for a noticeably smoother ride than human-operated trains elsewhere in the world. Our tour concluded with a walk-through of the operations center, where one person monitors the control computers for each line in operation. The maintenance yard operator allowed one of our students to move a train a few hundred metres by using the computer controls, demonstrating the ease of use for controllers.

Figure 5.2 - Metro Rapid System

A closely related sustainability plan goal is the reduction of average distance driven by personal automobiles. The average distance driven per person is measured in Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT in the U.S. and Vehicle Kilometres Travelled, or VKT, in Canada. Although the measured units are different between the two cities, the goal still remains just as ambitious in both cities. Los Angeles’ pLAn has called for a 5% reduction of VMT per person per day in 2025, and a 10% reduction in 2035. Vancouver’s sustainability plan has called for a 20% reduction from 2007 levels. Both Los Angeles and Vancouver plan to reach these goals by increasing mode share options, increasing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and making improvements to bus and rail transit options. According to Vancouver’s plan, “Many of us may want to choose our walking shoes or bicycle instead of the car, but barriers such as feelings of safety, comfort or convenience can get in the way.” In order to combat this quandary, the city’s plan calls for the establishment of “safer and more convenient bike routes, better bike parking and end-of-trip facilities, more dedicated pedestrian-priority spaces, streets and sidewalks that encourage active transportation, and improved safety through design, education and enforcement.”66 Los Angeles’ pLAn calls to achieve Vision Zero goals of 0 traffic fatalities by 2025. This would be a tremendous improvement since 2012’s 86 pedestrian traffic fatalities and 9 bicycle traffic fatalities.67 The pLAn’s three strategies to achieve this goal are the: “Adoption of “Vision Zero” policy and establishment of a multi-agency safety task force,” the ”Incorporation of safety for pedestrians into all street designs and redesigns,” and the “Collection of consistent, uniform data to drive improvements in most dangerous locations.”

Figure 5.1 - Frequent Transit Network in Metro Vancouver

3736

Figure 5.3 - Trankslink’s rail corridor in New Westminister

TAKEAWAYS

Both Los Angeles and Vancouver share goals for improvements in transit access and mobility. Vancouver’s goals are much more short-term, yet Los Angeles is a much more populous city and its goals are split into 10-year goals and 20-year goals.

With more 40% of Vancouverites using public transit or active transportation modes on a regular basis, Los Angeles has a lot to learn from Vancouver.

One of Los Angeles’ newest public transit innovations is the introduction of rush-hour bus-only lanes. Vancouver hosts similar peak-hour dedicated bus lanes, but the corridor’s headways are on average between 1.5 and 3 minutes. Los Angeles should use this reduced headway model for its implementation of bus-rapid-transit corridors.

Vancouver’s bicycle infrastructure is truly a marvel to those who utilize it. Bicycle paths and lanes extend throughout the region to provide safe infrastructure to commuters and pleasure-cyclists alike. Los Angeles’ relatively flat terrain and mild climate make it an ample region for cyclists, and city planners should use Vancouver’s model of bike infrastructure for extended implementation there.

Vancouver’s extensive automated rapid transit system is unparalleled in on-time-performance and safety. Automated transit requires tremendous infrastructure overhaul and fully separated rights-of way. As Los Angeles County continues to expand its rail transit systems and develop new lines, perhaps it should consider automated transit. At the very least, an automated people mover at its airports would provide a high-quality level of service that is absent in the present time.

•

•

•

•

•

3938

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the generous gifts, support, and advice that made our trip possible:

UCLA Luskin School of Public AffairsDr. Paavo Monkkonen, Assistant Professor of Urban PlanningVC Powe, Director of Career Services and Leadership DevelopmentEdward Hildebrand AwardUCLA Canadian StudiesUCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability

We had the pleasure of meeting and connecting with several individuals involved in creating change in Vancouver and the region. We’d like to thank them for spending their time with us in Vancouver:

Andy Yan, Director of SFU Cities program, Luskin AlumnusNeal LaMontagne, Vancouver City Planning Commissioner, Luskin PhD StudentTim Savoie, VP Transportation Planning and Policy at TranslinkBill Knight, Community Relations Officer at TranslinkSarah Tseng, Transportation Planner at Translink, Luskin AlumnaIan Fisher, Operations Planning Manager at British Columbia Rapid Transit CorporationPreet Heer, Planner at City of SurreyDon Buchanan, Transportation Engineer at City of SurreyPatrick Klassen, Parks & Recreation Planner at City of SurreyBrad Badelt, Senior Sustainability Specialist at City of VancouverDerek Pope, NEU Project Engineer at City of VancouverDuane Elverum, Co-Director and Co-Founder at CityStudioJenn McCrea, Manager of Educational Initiatives at CityStudioBryn Davidson, Architect at LanefabRob McGill, Architect at Francl ArchitectureScott Mitchell, Senior Architect at Francl ArchitectureLynn Macachek, Transportation Analyst at Bunt & AssociatesMichelle Babiuk, Project Manager at TranslinkUBC Urban Planning and SFU Urban Studies Students

4140

[20] Los Angeles receives an average of approximately 14 inches per year, while Vancouver receives an average of approximately 46 inches per year, based on calculation of average annual rainfall from roughly 1991 to 2015.

[21] “Vancouver Historical Total Precipitation.” Chart. Current Weather in Vancouver. Environment Canada, n.d.

[22] “Total Seasonal Rainfall (Precipitation) Los Angeles Civic Center, 1877-2015.” Table. Los Angeles Almanac. Given Place Media, n.d.

[23] Sustainable City pLAn. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 2015. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability.

[24] “Water Conservation during the Drought Emergency.” Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts. Los Angeles County, n.d.

[25] http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/southeast-false-creek-neighbourhood-energy-utility.aspx

[26] Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2012. City of Vancouver.

[27] “Citywide Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.” City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver, n.d.

[28] Sustainable City pLAn: First Annual Report 2015-2016. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 2016. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability.

[29] Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 2009. LA Stormwater.

[30] Giratalla, Waleed, and Jason Owen. “Opportunity Seized: Fast-growing Surrey, B.C., Embraces District Heating.” District Energy 2014: 7-11. City of Surrey.

[31] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=132&v=clH_iFhpljM

[32] Social Indicators and Trends 2014. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2015. City of Vancouver.

[33] Thomas, G. Scott. “Gini Indexes of Income Inequality in 2012 Major Markets.” The Business Journals. American City Business Journals, 31 Jan. 2014.

[34] 2014. Finlayson, Jock. “Opinion: Vancouver Has among Lowest Incomes, Highest Costs.” Vancouver Sun [Vancouver] 6 Aug. 2014: n. pag. Vancouver Sun.

[35] “2011 National Household Survey.” Census Program. Government of Canada, n.d.

[36] Social Indicators and Trends 2014. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2015. City of Vancouver.

[37] “Los Angeles CalEnviroScreen Scores.” Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. OEHHA, n.d.

[38] Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - Part Two: 2015-2020. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2015. City of Vancouver.

[39] Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - Part Two: 2015-2020. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2015. City of Vancouver.


[41] “Project Status.” 50 Parks Initiative. City of Los Angeles DRP, n.d.

[42] “LA Area Has Highest Urban Heat Island Effect in California.” 89.3 KPCC Southern California Public Radio. SCPR, 21 Sept. 2015.


[44] “About the Port: Facts and Figures.” The Port of Los Angeles. City of Los Angeles, 12 Apr. 2016

[45] “Report: Port Metro Vancouver Handles 19 Percent of Canada’s Trade.” Journal of Commerce 6 June 2013: n. pag. Journal of Commerce.

ENDNOTES

[1] Florida, Richard. “Insight: Canada’s Segregated Cities.” Martin Prosperity Institute. MPI, 23 Feb. 2015.

[2] Donnelly, Brandon. “The Most Segregated Cities in North America.” Brandon Donnelly. Brandon Donnelly, 24 Feb. 2015.

[3] Montreal is 227, Toronto is 242. Florida, Richard. “Insight: Canada’s Segregated Cities.” Martin Prosperity Institute. MPI, 23 Feb. 2015.

[4] Curran, Deborah. “Land Use in Canada - Where ‘Extensive and Restrictive Land Use Regulation Is the Norm.’” Law Professor Blogs Network. Law Professor Blogs, 4 Nov. 2014.

[5] “Building Code Basics.” Homeowner Protection Office: Branch of BC Housing. Province of British Columbia, n.d.

[6] Vancouver’s Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2012-2021. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2011. City of Vancouver.

[7] “City of Vancouver Housing Characteristics Fact Sheet.” Table. City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver, 18 Dec. 2015.

[8] America’s Rental Housing: Evolving Markets and Needs. Cambridge: JCHS, 2013. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.

[9] Vancouver’s Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2012-2021. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2011. City of Vancouver.

[10] Bertolet, Dan. “Why Vancouver Trounces the Rest of Cascadia in Building Adus.” Sightline Institute. Sightline Institute, 17 Feb. 2016.

[11] http://www.mayorofvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Laneway-Housing.jpg

[12] LaMontagne, Neal. Simon Fraser University. Vancouver. Lecture.

[13] Reardon, Chris, Max Mosher, and Dick Clarke. “Passive Solar Heating.” Your Home. Commonwealth of Australia, 2013.

[14] Renewable City Strategy 2015-2050. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2015. City of Vancouver.

[15] “Clean Energy Act.” BC Laws. Province of British Columbia, 31 May 2013.

[16] Community Energy & Emissions Plan. Surrey: City of Surrey, 2013. The City of Surrey.

[17] Renewable City Strategy 2015-2050. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2015. City of Vancouver.

[18] “How the Carbon Tax Works.” British Columbia Ministry of Finance. Province of British Columbia, n.d.


4342

[46] Southern California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan: Model Zoning Ordinances, and Building Codes. Los Angeles: UCLA Luskin, 2012. Southern California Association of Governments.

[47] “Rideship Statistics.” Table. Metro. Metro, n.d.

[48] “Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants.” Table. United States Environmental Protection Agency. US EPA, 22 Apr. 2016.

[49] “EV Charging Station Map.” Map. PlugShare. PlugShare, n.d.

[50] The LA metropolitan area has a population of 12.8 million and a density of 2,645/sq mi (Census Facts). In contrast, the Vancouver metropolitan area has a population of 2.5 million and a density of 2,078/sq mi (Statistics Canada).

[51] Greenest City 2020 Action Plan: 2014-2015 Implementation Update. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2014. City of Vancouver.

[52] https://performance.lacity.org/en/stat/goals/yn4r-yz4i/6bka-tmpz/96td-rgkv

[53] Refer to red circle in farmers market map.

[54] Greenest City 2020 Action Plan: 2014-2015 Implementation Update. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2014. City of Vancouver.

[55] http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2015/12/17/translink-budgets-900k-for-road-pricing; http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/regional_transportation_strategy/rts_strategic_framework_07_31_2013.pdf

[56] http://citystudiovancouver.com/projects/britannia-food-share/

[57] http://citystudiovancouver.com/projects/the-everett-crowley-outdoor-learning-project/

[58] Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2012. City of Vancouver.

[59] Resilience by Design. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 2014. Office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.

[60] “Earthquake Preparedness Strategy.” City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver, 2014.

[61] Climate Adaptation Strategy. Surrey: City of Surrey, 2013. City of Surrey.

[62] Plan Surrey 2013: Official Community Plan. Surrey: City of Surrey, 2014. City of Surrey.


[64] Mclean, Robert. “Americans Were Stuck in Traffic for 8 Billion Hours in 2015.” CNN Money. Cable News Network, 15 Mar. 2016.

[65] Judd, Amy. “Vancouver Remains the Most Traffic-congested City in Canada.” Global News. Global News, n.d.



4544

Community Energy & Emissions Plan. Surrey: City of Surrey, 2013. The City of Surrey. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.surrey.ca/files/ceep-02-02-2014.pdf>.

Curran, Deborah. “Land Use in Canada - Where ‘Extensive and Restrictive Land Use Regulation Is the Norm.’” Law Professor Blogs Network. Law Professor Blogs, 4 Nov. 2014. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/land_use/2014/11/land-use-in-canada-where-extensive- and-restrictive-land-use-regulation-is-the-norm-by-deborah-curran.html>.

“Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants.” Table. United States Environmental Protection Agency. US EPA, 22 Apr. 2016. Web. 22 May 2016. <https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ greenbook/ancl.html>.

Donnelly, Brandon. “The Most Segregated Cities in North America.” Brandon Donnelly. Brandon Donnelly, 24 Feb. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://brandondonnelly.com/post/111998835748/ the-most-segregated-cities-in-north-america>.

“Earthquake Preparedness Strategy.” City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver, 2014. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/Earthquake-Preparedness-Strategy.aspx>.

“EV Charging Station Map.” Map. PlugShare. PlugShare, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www. plugshare.com/>.

Finlayson, Jock. “Opinion: Vancouver Has Among Lowest Incomes, Highest Costs.” Vancouver Sun [Vancouver] 6 Aug. 2014: n. pag. Vancouver Sun. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.vancouversun. com/Opinion+Vancouver+among+lowest+incomes+highest+costs/10098684/story.html>.

Florida, Richard. “Insight: Canada’s Segregated Cities.” Martin Prosperity Institute. MPI, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://martinprosperity.org/content/insight-canada-segregated-city/>.

Giratalla, Waleed, and Jason Owen. “Opportunity Seized: Fast-growing Surrey, B.C., Embraces District Heating.” District Energy 2014: 7-11. City of Surrey. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.surrey.ca/ files/IDEAArticle-DistictEnergy.pdf>.

Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2012. City of Vancouver. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Greenest-city-action-plan.pdf>.

Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - Part Two: 2015-2020. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2015. City of Vancouver. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/greenest-city-2020-action- plan-2015-2020.pdf>.

Greenest City 2020 Action Plan: 2014-2015 Implementation Update. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2014. City of Vancouver. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/greenest-city- action-plan-implementation-update-2014-2015.pdf>.

“How the Carbon Tax Works.” British Columbia Ministry of Finance. Province of British Columbia, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A4.htm>.

Judd, Amy. “Vancouver Remains the Most Traffic-congested City in Canada.” Global News. Global News, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://globalnews.ca/news/1913528/vancouver-remains-the- most-traffic-congested-city-in-north-america/>.

“About the Port: Facts and Figures.” The Port of Los Angeles. City of Los Angeles, 12 Apr. 2016. Web. 22 May 2016. <https://www.portoflosangeles.org/about/facts.asp>.

America’s Rental Housing: Evolving Markets and Needs. Cambridge: JCHS, 2013. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/ jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs_americas_rental_housing_2013_1_0.pdf>.

Bertolet, Dan. “Why Vancouver Trounces the Rest of Cascadia in Building Adus.” Sightline Institute. Sightline Institute, 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.sightline.org/2016/02/17/ why-vancouver-trounces-the-rest-of-cascadia-in-building-adus/>.

“Building Code Basics.” Homeowner Protection Office: Branch of BC Housing. Province of British Columbia, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <https://www.hpo.bc.ca/building-code-basics>.

“City of Vancouver Housing Characteristics Fact Sheet.” Table. City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver, 18 Dec. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/housing-characteristics-factsheet.pdf>.

“City of Vancouver Zoning Districts.” Map. City of Vancouver Public VanMap. City of Vancouver, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vanmapp.vancouver.ca/pubvanmap_net/default.aspx>.

“Citywide Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.” City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/city-wide-integrated- stormwater-management-plan.aspx>.

“Clean Energy Act.” BC Laws. Province of British Columbia, 31 May 2013. Web. 22 May 2016. <http:// www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/consol24/consol24/00_10022_01>.

Climate Adaptation Strategy. Surrey: City of Surrey, 2013. City of Surrey. Web. 22 May 2016. <http:// www.surrey.ca/files/(13365)_Climate_Adaption_Strategy_-_FINAL_WEB.pdf>.

Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2012. City of Vancouver. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Vancouver-Climate-Change-Adaptation- Strategy-2012-11-07.pdf>.

REFERENCES

4746

Sustainable City pLAn: First Annual Report 2015-2016. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 2016. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.lamayor.org/sites/g/files/wph446/f/ landing_pages/files/Plan-annual%20update-online.pdf>.

Thomas, G. Scott. “Gini Indexes of Income Inequality in 2012 Major Markets.” The Business Journals. American City Business Journals, 31 Jan. 2014. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.bizjournals. com/bizjournals/news/2014/01/31/gini-indexes-of-income-inequality-in.html>.

“Total Seasonal Rainfall (Precipitation) Los Angeles Civic Center, 1877-2015.” Table. Los Angeles Almanac. Given Place Media, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/ we13.htm>.

“2011 National Household Survey.” Census Program. Government of Canada, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm>.

“Vancouver Historical Total Precipitation.” Chart. Current Weather in Vancouver. Environment Canada, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.weatherstats.ca/metrics/precipitation.html>.

Vancouver’s Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2012-2021. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2011. City of Vancouver. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Housing-and-Homeless- Strategy-2012-2021pdf.pdf>.

“Water Conservation during the Drought Emergency.” Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts. Los Angeles County, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/ Conservation/Drought.aspx>.

Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 2009. LA Stormwater. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.lastormwater.org/wp-content/files_mf/wqcmpur. pdf>.

“LA Area Has Highest Urban Heat Island Effect in California.” 89.3 KPCC Southern California Public Radio. SCPR, 21 Sept. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/09/21/54511/ la-area-has-highest-urban-heat-island-effect-in-ca/>.

LaMontagne, Neal. Simon Fraser University. Vancouver. Lecture.

“Los Angeles CalEnviroScreen Scores.” Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. OEHHA, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data>.

Mclean, Robert. “Americans Were Stuck in Traffic for 8 Billion Hours in 2015.” CNN Money. Cable News Network, 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/15/news/ us-commutes-traffic-cars/>.

Plan Surrey 2013: Official Community Plan. Surrey: City of Surrey, 2014. City of Surrey. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/BYL_OCP_18020.pdf>.

“Project Status.” 50 Parks Initiative. City of Los Angeles DRP, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www. laparks.org/50parks/project-status.html>.

Reardon, Chris, Max Mosher, and Dick Clarke. “Passive Solar Heating.” Your Home. Commonwealth of Australia, 2013. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.yourhome.gov.au/passive-design/passive- solar-heating>.

Renewable City Strategy 2015-2050. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2015. City of Vancouver. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/renewable-city-strategy-booklet-2015.pdf>.

“Report: Port Metro Vancouver Handles 19 Percent of Canada’s Trade.” Journal of Commerce 6 June 2013: n. pag. Journal of Commerce. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.joc.com/port-news/ international-ports/port-metro-vancouver/report-port-metro-vancouver-handles-19-percent- canada%E2%80%99s-trade_20130606.html>.

Resilience by Design. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 2014. Office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.lamayor.org/sites/g/files/wph446/f/article/files/Resilience%20 by%20Design%20%281%29.pdf>.

“Rideship Statistics.” Table. Metro. Metro, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016. <https://www.metro.net/news/ ridership-statistics/>.

Social Indicators and Trends 2014. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2015. City of Vancouver. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/factsheet5-making-ends-meet.PDF>.

Southern California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan: Model Zoning Ordinances, and Building Codes. Los Angeles: UCLA Luskin, 2012. Southern California Association of Governments. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://sustain.scag.ca.gov/Documents/SCAG_PEV_Plan-Zoning_and_Bldg_ Codes.pdf>.

Sustainable City pLAn. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 2015. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.lamayor.org/sites/g/files/wph446/f/landing_pages/files/The%20 pLAn.pdf>.

48