UBC Graduate Research

Leed-ND as a Tool for Local Government Planning 2012

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
SCARP_2012_gradproject_Joseph.pdf
SCARP_2012_gradproject_Joseph.pdf [ 2.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0102546.json
JSON-LD: 1.0102546+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0102546.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0102546+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0102546+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0102546+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0102546.ris

Full Text

  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS   Thank you to Dr. Maged Senbel, for your inspirational teaching and for all your guidance, particularly while I was exploring different topics for this project. Thank you to Thor Kuhlmann, for all of your excellent advice and helpful suggestions. To my planning friends, thank you for the camaraderie and encouragement. To my wonderful family - Mum, Dad, Maia, and Chalys - thank you for all of your love and support. And thank you Dave, for working so hard with me on all of our projects, while also reminding me to relax and have fun.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Two City of Vancouver planning areas were assessed in relation to LEED for Neighbourhood Development (LEED-ND) criteria. The two study areas were Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre and Central Broadway. Two new policy documents for these areas were also assessed: the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan and the Draft C-3A Central Broadway Design Guidelines.  Results from this assessment indicate that neither study area would be likely to achieve all LEED-ND prerequisites, meaning that neither could certify as LEED-ND projects. However, both areas would be expected to meet many credit requirements. Existing conditions in Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre would likely achieve in the range of 32 points (not “Certified” according to LEED-ND point levels). Approximately 56 points (equivalent to the LEED-ND “Silver” level) would likely be achieved if this area were redeveloped in accordance with the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan. The existing Central Broadway area would likely achieve in the range of 46 points (LEED-ND “Certified”). Approximately 59 points (LEED-ND “Silver”) would likely be achieved if this area were redeveloped in accordance with the Draft C- 3A Design Guidelines for Central Broadway.  Based on these results, recommendations were developed outlining how the Draft C-3A Central Broadway Design Guidelines should be revised to improve the area’s performance in terms of LEED-ND criteria. Recommendations were also developed for the City of Vancouver regarding how the city as a whole could improve its performance in terms of LEED-ND criteria. These recommendations support the City of Vancouver’s Greenest City 2020 goals, as LEED-ND and the Greenest City 2020 initiative cover similar topics. Finally, additional recommendations were developed for the US Green Building Council on how the LEED-ND rating system could be adapted to better apply to existing neighbourhoods and to local government plans.  This assessment project demonstrated how LEED-ND can be a useful tool for local government planning programs. New versions of the LEED-ND rating system designed specifically for existing neighbourhoods and their plans would allow LEED-ND to become a more valuable tool for local governments.  1  TABLE OF CONTENTS   1 - LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ....................................................................................................... 2  2 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 3  i. Objective .............................................................................................................................. 3  ii. LEED-ND: Background and Overview .............................................................................. 5  iii. LEED-ND as a Tool to Support Local Government Planning .......................................... 7  3 - METHODOLOGY: LEED-ND ASSESSMENT APPROACH ............................................................ 10  i. Norquay LEED-ND Assessment ....................................................................................... 10  ii. Central Broadway LEED-ND Assessment ....................................................................... 13  4 – RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 16  i. Norquay ............................................................................................................................. 16  ii. Central Broadway ............................................................................................................. 30  iii. Green Infrastructure and Buildings (GIB) ....................................................................... 44  5 - DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 53  i. Norquay and Central Broadway: Comparison of LEED-ND Assessments ....................... 53  ii. City of Vancouver and LEED-ND ................................................................................... 58  6 - RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 63  i. For Central Broadway ........................................................................................................ 63  ii. For the City of Vancouver ................................................................................................ 70  iii. For Other Local Governments ......................................................................................... 77  iv. For Revising LEED-ND for Assessing Existing Neighbourhoods and Their Plans ........ 78  7 – CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 82  8 – WORKS CITED ................................................................................................................................... 85  Appendix A. Norquay LEED-ND Assessment: SLL and NPD .................................................................. 88  Appendix B. Central Broadway LEED-ND Assessment: SLL and NPD ................................................. 105  Appendix C. LEED-ND Assessment for Norquay and Central Broadway: GIB ...................................... 122  Appendix D. Universal Design Strategies from LEED-ND for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings .......... 138     2  1 - LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES  Figures Figure 1. Norquay Planning Program Boundaries………………………………………… 11 Figure 2. Central Broadway Planning Program Boundaries………………………………. 14 Figure 3. Mock LEED-ND Scorecard for Norquay – Existing Neighbourhood………….. 18 Figure 4. Mock LEED-ND Scorecard for Norquay – Plan………………………………… 19 Figure 5. Mock LEED-ND Scorecard for Central Broadway – Existing Neighbourhood… 33 Figure 6. Mock LEED-ND Scorecard for Central Broadway – with Redevelopment According to Existing City Policy/By-laws……………………………………… 34 Figure 7. Mock LEED-ND Scorecard for Central Broadway – with Draft Guidelines and Redevelopment………………………………………………………………….. 35  Tables Table 1. Central Broadway LEED-ND Assessment Results………………………………. 56 Table 2. Norquay LEED-ND Assessment Results………………………………………… 57  3  2 - INTRODUCTION  i. Objective  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a series of green building rating systems developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).  The Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) adapts these rating systems for the Canadian context.  The LEED rating systems are widely used across North America, and are increasingly employed in other countries around the world.  LEED for Neighbourhood Development (LEED-ND) is a rating system that has been designed to assess new neighbourhood-scale development or redevelopment projects. Like other LEED rating systems, LEED-ND assesses green buildings, but it also addresses green infrastructure, and a neighbourhood’s pattern and design.  In addition, the rating system has a section focused on Smart Growth principles, and key requirements related to the location of development sites.  The objectives of this research project are to assess the City of Vancouver’s Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre (Norquay) and Central Broadway planning areas in relation to the requirements of the LEED-ND rating system, and to provide advice on how the City could address LEED-ND criteria through City policy, guidelines, and by-laws. This LEED-ND assessment covers the existing neighbourhoods, as well as the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan (Norquay Plan) and the Draft C-3A Central Broadway Design Guidelines (Draft Guidelines), to the extent to which these documents address the subject matter of the LEED-ND rating system. The purpose of this project is to employ the LEED-ND rating system to assess both existing neighbourhoods and new policy documents (i.e. a plan and a draft set of development guidelines) for these neighbourhoods.  The Norquay and Central Broadway neighbourhoods provide an opportunity to employ LEED- ND as an assessment tool in slightly different ways. The Norquay Plan has recently been completed  (City of Vancouver, 2010a), so the goal of the LEED-ND assessment for Norquay is 4  to examine how the neighbourhood, including new development that would be occurring as a result of the new plan, would fare in relation to LEED-ND criteria. The Central Broadway planning area, however, will still be in the midst of a planning process when this analysis is complete, so the purpose of the LEED-ND assessment for this area is threefold:  1. To assess the existing neighbourhood according to LEED-ND criteria, to identify opportunities and specific topics for new planning policy to address; 2. To assess the new Draft Guidelines for the neighbourhood, to determine whether this draft policy would improve the neighbourhood’s performance in relation to LEED-ND criteria; and, 3. To provide recommendations on how the Draft Guidelines and other City policy and by-laws could better address the LEED-ND criteria in Central Broadway, and how the city as a whole could improve its performance in terms of LEED-ND criteria.  For both Central Broadway and Norquay, a LEED-ND assessment was viewed as a valuable undertaking by the municipal planners overseeing the planning programs for these areas as it provides an opportunity to assess these neighbourhoods and their new planning policy against a reputed international standard for green neighbourhood development (Cheng, 2012; Kuhlmann, 2012). This was perhaps of particular interest for the City of Vancouver given the City’s “Greenest City 2020” initiative, where the City’s goal is “to be the greenest city in the world by 2020” (City of Vancouver, 2012a).  An additional overarching purpose for this assessment project is to explore the application of LEED-ND in a municipal planning context and to assess its usefulness as a tool for local government planners. Related to this, a final objective for this project is to provide recommendations to the U.S. Green Building Council on how the LEED-ND rating system could be adapted to create a more valuable tool for local governments.   5  ii. LEED-ND: Background and Overview  While there are many different ways to define “sustainable” or “green” neighbourhood development, the LEED-ND standard is one rating system that lays out a wide spectrum of potential features associated with this type of neighbourhood development, and allocates points according to the relative environmental and/or social benefit of these features.  The development of LEED-ND was a partnership between the USGBC, the U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU). The overarching goal of this partnership was to integrate principles of smart growth and urban design with criteria for green buildings and infrastructure, together under one rating system.  The result was an assessment program that includes specific prerequisites for the location of a development project, while awarding points for walkable streets, affordable housing, preservation of historic resources, district energy systems, and community engagement in the design process, among other criteria.  The LEED-ND rating system is unique among LEED rating systems in that it looks beyond single buildings to multiple building projects, addressing the public infrastructure that ties these buildings together, as well as the local amenities that contribute to the formation of well-rounded communities. Many different types of LEED-ND projects are possible, ranging from small infill projects to master-planned communities. They may include a range of uses, or be comprised of a single use that complements surrounding land uses.   The LEED-ND program is also unique among LEED rating systems in that there are three stages during the planning and development process at which a project may obtain a form of certification for adhering to the LEED-ND criteria: (1) pre-zoning, (2) post-zoning/pre- construction, and (3) completed development. The intention of this multi-staged certification approach is to provide an opportunity for LEED-ND certification to link in with the planning and development approval process, and to enable the rating system to be used most effectively as a tool to guide and encourage more sustainable forms of neighbourhood development.  6  An extensive pilot program involving over 230 projects internationally, including 23 Canadian projects, informed the development of the LEED-ND rating system. Examples of Canadian projects include Waterfront Toronto and the Dockside Green project in Victoria. The final, market-ready version of the rating system, referred to as “LEED-ND 2009,” was launched internationally in 2010. There are currently eight Canadian LEED-ND 2009 projects underway across the country. Although this rating system originated in the U.S., the CaGBC has developed Canadian “Alternative Compliance Paths” (ACPs), so that the LEED-ND rating system may be readily applied in Canada (Canada Green Building Council, 2011).  The LEED-ND rating system, formally referred to in Canada as “LEED 2009 ND with Canadian ACPs,” is broken down into four key categories:  Smart Location and Linkage – Is the development in the right place and is it connected to existing infrastructure, with adequate protection for environmental features? Neighbourhood Pattern and Design – Does the project utilize sustainable measures in the layout and design of the community, considering matters such as walkability, compact development, mix of uses, and transportation? Green Infrastructure and Buildings – Does the design incorporate optimal sustainable delivery systems for water, energy, waste, etc., as well as optimal green building technologies? Innovation and Design Process – Does the project utilize exemplary and innovative techniques in green building, smart growth, or new urbanist principles, exceeding current standards?  Within each category are prerequisites that are mandatory, as well as a menu of credits for which projects achieve points. The number of points allocated to each credit is based on the potential environmental impacts associated with the credit, as well as social and public health benefits. The rating system has a total of 100 base points, while Innovation and Design Process credits provide an opportunity for up to 6 bonus points. Depending on the number of points achieved, applicants to the LEED-ND program may be recognized with a ‘Certified’, ‘Silver’, ‘Gold’, or ‘Platinum’ rating (U.S. Green Building Council, 2011a; C. Joseph et al., 2012).  7  The U.S. version of the LEED-ND rating system also contains a fifth credit category, “Regional Priority,” which allocates additional points for credit topics that are deemed particularly important for specific geographical areas.  The membership of the USGBC, CNU, and Smart Growth chapters in the U.S. collectively went through an extensive vetting process to select appropriate priority credits for each region. As this process has not been undertaken for areas outside the U.S., these Regional Priority credits are currently not available to all non-U.S. LEED-ND projects.  iii. LEED-ND as a Tool to Support Local Government Planning  The CaGBC has received numerous inquiries from Canadian local government planners regarding whether LEED-ND may be applied to existing neighbourhoods, either to assess the actual neighbourhoods or to assess neighbourhood plans. While this interest is not surprising, it is important to note that the LEED-ND rating system was designed for new development projects or projects containing a significant amount of redevelopment (i.e. projects where new buildings are being constructed or major renovations are being undertaken). For this reason, guidelines for those interested in applying for LEED-ND certification state that the proportion of new development or redevelopment should be greater than 50% of a project’s total building floor area, as otherwise it becomes very challenging for a project to meet LEED-ND prerequisite and credit criteria. However, even though the LEED-ND rating system was not intentionally developed for assessing existing neighbourhoods, there are many ways in which planners may use this rating system as a tool to inform or support the development of local government policy, by-laws, and guidelines.  The USGBC has produced a Local Government Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development that provides an overview on the various ways LEED-ND may be employed as a tool by local governments (U.S. Green Building Council, 2012b).  In terms of existing neighbourhoods and municipal plans, this guide states (p.6):    8  LEED-ND…was not designed to rate public plans, such as general plans, but rather individual project development plans. If you are looking for a program suitable for an entire city, the STAR Community Index might be more appropriate...Because LEED-ND rates individual development projects, it is not the best program to certify an existing, established neighborhood. However, new projects in existing neighborhoods can work quite well; the system applies best when at least 50% of a project’s total building square footage consists of new buildings, or buildings undergoing major renovation.  The STAR Community Index is currently under development by ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability in partnership with the U.S. Green Building Council, the Center for American Progress, and the National League of Cities.  When complete, the STAR Index will consist of a rating system for whole communities, providing benchmarks and metrics by which communities (e.g. cities, counties, or neighbourhoods) may assess their progress towards sustainability. The Index covers the following topic areas: Natural Systems, Planning & Design, Energy & Climate, Economic Development, Employment & Workforce Training, Education, Arts & Community, Children, Health & Safety, and Affordability & Social Equity (ICLEI, 2011).  While the STAR Index will likely prove to be an invaluable tool for local government planners, it is still under development.  In the interim, many planners see LEED-ND as a tool that could perhaps be applied more broadly than it was originally intended.  In terms of municipal plans, the USGBC’s Local Government Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development suggests that local governments could use LEED-ND to:   Review plans for any existing barriers to LEED-ND development;  Use LEED-ND as a “discussion starter” during the planning process;  Compare plans to LEED-ND rating system topic areas, to assess whether plans address relevant areas of sustainable practice (gap analysis);  Borrow metrics and thresholds from LEED-ND prerequisites and credits, e.g. to add specific metrics to more general goals already within the plan; and,  After drafting plans, use LEED-ND to assess how each area or neighbourhood, when redeveloped, might score under the LEED-ND rating system.  9  For example, in Syracuse, New York, the Syracuse Art Life and Technology (SALT) district used LEED-ND as a guiding framework for the planning process.  First the existing neighbourhood was assessed according to LEED-ND criteria, and then plans were produced which responded to the district’s strengths and weaknesses identified through the LEED-ND assessment. In addition, the new plan for the neighbourhood, which will guide future development, achieved a LEED-ND Gold certification.  10  3 - METHODOLOGY: LEED-ND ASSESSMENT APPROACH  i. Norquay LEED-ND Assessment  Beginning in March of 2006, the City of Vancouver conducted a planning process for Norquay, which resulted in the Norquay Plan, approved by City Council in November, 2010 (City of Vancouver, 2010a). Figure 1 shows the Norquay planning program boundaries, which extend from approximately 29th Avenue in the north to 41st Avenue in the south, and from Gladstone Street in the west to Killarney Street in the east, an area of approximately 100 acres (40 hectares) in size.  The Norquay planning area is an existing neighbourhood with predominantly residential RS-1 zoning, as well as a commercial corridor along Kingsway Street, which runs through the centre of the neighbourhood. Redevelopment occurs in the neighbourhood on individual properties or small clusters of properties over time, as opportunities arise, by many different owners and developers. According to the Norquay Plan:  A key principle that evolved through the planning process is that change in residential neighbourhoods should be incremental and organic in nature. In response, this Plan is designed to allow for the redevelopment of a neighbourhood block to take place over several years or decades (typically with many different designers and builders) and ensures that new development does not dramatically reshape the block with homogenous and uniform housing projects. This incremental approach is also more consistent with the historical development of neighbourhoods over time as opposed to a large-scale master plan development. (City of Vancouver, 2010b, p.17)  This type of gradual, incremental redevelopment, typical of existing neighbourhoods in Vancouver, is such that formal LEED-ND certification for the area is likely neither practical nor feasible. Due to the numerous different existing landowners in the neighbourhood, obtaining LEED-ND certification would require hundreds of formal agreements among all of these landowners, regarding any redevelopment they intend to pursue on their property, along with detailed plans for all redevelopment. This is why LEED-ND certifications are typically only undertaken by single landowners/developers, or by small groups of landowners and developers. 11  Figure 1: Norquay Planning Program Boundaries (Vancouver, 2010b)     However, a general assessment of the Norquay planning area according to the LEED-ND rating system criteria was feasible. For the City of Vancouver’s purposes, this LEED-ND assessment did not need to be exhaustive in terms of covering every prerequisite and credit in detail, and did not need to strictly adhere to all clauses within the rating system. Instead, the goal was to apply the rating system to the neighbourhood as accurately as possible given the nature of the planning 12  area, i.e. an existing neighbourhood with multiple landowners, and varying rates and types of redevelopment. Certain LEED-ND prerequisites and credits were more readily applied to the existing neighbourhood and to the new plan than others. Detailed summaries of the assessment for each prerequisite and credit for Norquay are available in Appendix A (the Smart Location and Linkage and the Neighbourhood Pattern and Design sections) and Appendix C (the Green Infrastructure and Buildings section).  The author collected information about the Norquay planning area from a variety of sources. These include: data from VanMap (the City of Vancouver’s online mapping tool) and Google Earth; data and reports from the City of Vancouver; transit information (routes and schedules) from Translink, the Metro Vancouver transit authority; and direct observations of the neighbourhood.  First, the author undertook an assessment of all existing neighbourhood features, in relation to LEED-ND criteria. Secondly, the author incorporated new policy and zoning for the planning area (outlined in the Norquay Plan) into the assessment, to determine how the neighbourhood’s assessed performance in relation to LEED-ND criteria might change as redevelopment occurs in accordance with the Norquay Plan.  For the purposes of assessing the new plan in relation to certain LEED-ND credits, it was necessary to select a point at which a particular level of redevelopment would have occurred within the various zones described in the Norquay Plan. Average densities for each rezoned area under the plan were employed, in order to assess how the neighbourhood would score in relation to LEED-ND at the point which approximately half of each rezoned area would have undergone redevelopment to bring it in accordance with the maximum density, building floor area, and number of dwelling units available under the new zoning (i.e. built out in accordance with the parameters of the new plan).  Finally, wherever applicable, the author referred to city-wide policy and by-laws for topic areas that were not covered within the new Norquay Plan. For both Norquay and Central Broadway, many criteria of the LEED-ND Green Buildings and Infrastructure section fall into this category. For this reason, the Green Buildings and Infrastructure assessment was undertaken jointly for Norquay and Central Broadway, and is summarized separately in Appendix C. 13   The Innovation and Design Process (IDP) section of LEED-ND did not factor into this assessment, beyond the consideration of “Exemplary Performance” points that could be achieved by Norquay if the planning area met the thresholds that are pre-determined within the LEED-ND rating system. Regional Priority Credits (RPC) also were not considered, as these are only available to U.S. projects.  ii. Central Broadway LEED-ND Assessment  In the spring of 2010, the City of Vancouver began a planning program for Central Broadway, a planning area which generally includes Broadway between Arbutus Street and Main Street, an area of approximately 160 acres (65 hectares), as shown in Figure 2. The area is at the core of the second largest commercial district in the province, and includes several retail districts, as well as many multi-unit residential buildings.  As was the case with Norquay, the Central Broadway area is an existing neighbourhood with redevelopment occurring on individual properties or small clusters of properties over time, as opportunities arise, by many different landowners and developers. As a result, formal LEED-ND certification for the area is likely neither practical nor feasible. However, a general assessment of the Central Broadway planning area according to the LEED-ND rating system was feasible. The objective for Central Broadway was to assess the existing neighbourhood in relation to LEED- ND criteria, and determine how the Draft Guidelines might impact that assessment, as redevelopment occurs within the area. The Draft Guidelines are expected to be generally adhered to by all rezoning projects and all projects seeking conditional FSR allowance, within the Central Broadway area.  14  Figure 2: Central Broadway Planning Program Boundaries (City of Vancouver, 2010c)     The approach for the LEED-ND assessment for Central Broadway was conducted by the author in the same manner as the assessment for Norquay. The key difference between the assessments for Norquay and Central Broadway was that the LEED-ND assessment for Central Broadway was undertaken during the planning process, and the Draft Guidelines have not yet been completed and approved by City Council. Therefore, the Central Broadway LEED-ND assessment differs from the Norquay assessment in that it reviews a draft policy, and not a finalized plan approved by Council. All policy directions contained within the Draft Guidelines were still evolving at the time of writing of this report. As a result, this evaluation was conducted using draft ideas provided by the Vancouver Planning Department for purposes of advancing this project and gaining a better understanding of the relevant issues in Central Broadway.  The initial LEED-ND assessment of the existing Central Broadway neighbourhood was used as a resource by City of Vancouver planning staff to inform the development of the Draft Guidelines (Kuhlmann, 2012). In addition, the author compared the outcome of the LEED-ND assessment for the existing Central Broadway neighbourhood to the outcome of the subsequent LEED-ND assessment of the area’s redevelopment in accordance with the Draft Guidelines, to determine how the new draft policy for the neighbourhood would change its performance under LEED-ND 15  criteria. Therefore, the LEED-ND assessment for Central Broadway differed substantially from the Norquay assessment in that the intention was to use the outcomes of the assessment, where appropriate, to inform the planning process.  In many ways, the goals for the LEED-ND assessment for Central Broadway were similar to the work done for the SALT district in New York. One key difference, however, is that the City of Vancouver was not interested in obtaining LEED-ND certification for the Central Broadway area (Kuhlmann, 2012). This planning area would not be a good candidate for pursuing full LEED- ND certification for the following reasons:  1. The large size of the planning area; and, 2. LEED-ND projects generally require at least 50% of their building area to be new construction or major renovations. The redevelopment rate in Central Broadway, depending on the year, may consist of only a few new building projects, making LEED-ND certification impractical.  As with Norquay, the IDP and RPC sections of LEED-ND did not factor into this assessment, beyond the consideration of “Exemplary Performance” points.  16  4 – RESULTS  i. Norquay  a. Summary of Results  The Norquay planning area would be expected to meet the requirements of numerous LEED-ND prerequisites and credits based on existing neighbourhood features; these are summarized in Figure 3, a mock LEED-ND scorecard for the existing Norquay neighbourhood. Other prerequisites or credits would be expected to be achieved based on topics covered in the Norquay Plan, or based on city-wide policy, guidelines, and/or by-laws. These have been added in to a second mock LEED-ND scorecard for the Norquay Plan, as shown in Figure 4.  For Norquay, the City of Vancouver’s key interest in this LEED-ND assessment was to determine how the neighbourhood would score if built-out according to the Norquay Plan (Cheng, 2012). The Norquay Plan covers four key topic areas: new residential zones for the neighbourhood, changes to the Kingsway commercial/mixed-use zone, planned infrastructural improvements related to movement and circulation, and planned improvements to community amenities and facilities (City of Vancouver, 2010b). Many aspects of LEED-ND were not covered by the Norquay Plan, and so the plan did not impact the score for these prerequisites or credits. The Norquay Plan did not address most of the Smart Location and Linkage and the Green Infrastructure and Buildings sections. However, it did address most of the Neighbourhood Pattern and Design section.  According to this assessment, the Norquay planning area would be expected to score quite well in terms of LEED-ND criteria. While it would not be expected to meet all LEED-ND prerequisites, existing conditions in Norquay would likely achieve in the range of 32 points (Figure 3). When points which would likely be achieved as a result of redevelopment according to the Norquay Plan and city-wide policy, guidelines, and/or by-laws are taken into account (Figure 4), it would likely achieve in the range of 56 points, equivalent to the LEED-ND “Silver” level (in terms of points). However, Norquay would likely not be able to achieve several 17  prerequisites required to participate in LEED-ND; one from the Neighbourhood Pattern and Design section and three from the Green Infrastructure and Buildings section.  The majority of the points anticipated to be achieved would come from the Neighbourhood Pattern and Design section, where the Norquay area could potentially garner 28 out of 44 possible points, as well as one exemplary performance point. These points reflect the mix of uses, diversity of housing proposed under the plan, proximity to amenities, and other features of the streets that contribute to their walkability. Norquay would also likely achieve a fair number of points from the Smart Location and Linkage section, potentially garnering 21 out of 27 possible points, as well as two exemplary performance points. These points primarily reflect that the development in this area is on infill, previously developed sites, and in a location with reduced automobile dependence. Norquay would likely garner only four out of 29 points for Green Infrastructure and Buildings, and one out of four prerequisites in this section.  The following sections of this report describe Norquay’s individual prerequisite and credit assessments for the LEED-ND Smart Location and Linkage and Neighbourhood Pattern and Design criteria. Additional details on these assessments are provided in Appendix A.  The Norquay prerequisite and credit assessments for the LEED-ND Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria are provided later in this report, as these were considered in conjunction with the LEED-ND assessment for Central Broadway, due to the nature of the Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria being such that it is typically dealt with at the city-wide scale; for this same reason, the detailed assessments for both Norquay and Central Broadway in relation to the Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria are provided together in Appendix C.  18  Figure 3. Mock LEED-ND Scorecard for Norquay – Existing Neighbourhood  19  Figure 4. Mock LEED-ND Scorecard for Norquay – Plan 20  b. Smart Location and Linkage (SLL)  Prerequisites  The SLL prerequisites can be a challenging part of the LEED-ND rating system for projects to pass, as there are relatively strict requirements regarding the location of development and impacts on sensitive lands.  However, these prerequisites would be readily achieved by the Norquay planning area. Being an existing, developed neighbourhood, the area meets the LEED-ND requirement for water and wastewater infrastructure. The entire area qualifies for multiple compliance pathways (although it is only necessary to comply with one) under the first SLL prerequisite “Smart Location” (SLLp1) as it is an infill site (Option 1), it is adjacent to and well connected to existing development (Option 2), it is well served by transit (Option 3), and there are many community amenities located within walking distance (Option 4). Norquay would meet the requirements of the rest of the SLL prerequisites (SLLp2 “Imperiled Species and Ecological Communities,” SLLp3 “Wetland and Water Body Conservation,” SLLp4 “Agricultural Land Conservation,” and SLLp5 “Floodplain Avoidance”), as it is previously developed land that does not contain wetlands, waterbodies, habitat for endangered species, or prime agricultural land, and is not located on a regulatory floodplain. Although all these prerequisites would be achieved by Norquay, it should be noted that, as the requirements of these SLL prerequisites pertain specifically to existing site conditions, their assessment would not be impacted by any direction contained within the Norquay Plan.  Credits  There are several SLL credits for which the Norquay planning area would meet the credit requirements based on the existing nature of the neighbourhood.  These include “Preferred Locations” (SLLc1), “Locations with Reduced Automobile Dependence” (SLLc3), “Steep Slope Protection” (SLLc6), and “Site Design for Habitat or Wetland and Water Body Conservation” (SLLc7). 21   Norquay would be expected to achieve numerous points under “Preferred Locations” (SLLc1) due to the area being an infill site with many intersections. In fact, the high intersection density in the Norquay area would garner an additional point for “exemplary performance,” for substantially exceeding the basic credit requirements. This is partly due to the many back lanes (common throughout the City of Vancouver) in the area, and also a result of the unique nature to the street network in this neighbourhood; this unique street network is the product of three street grids meeting in the centre of Norquay, producing many angled street intersections and irregularly-shaped blocks (City of Vancouver, 2010b). Finally it should be noted that, similar to the SLL prerequisites, the requirements of “Preferred Locations” (SLLc1) pertain specifically to existing site conditions, and so the Norquay assessment for this credit would not be impacted by any direction contained within the Norquay Plan.  Norquay would also be expected to achieve many points, as well as an exemplary performance point, for “Locations with Reduced Automobile Dependence” (SLLc3), as a result of all of the public transit available in the area. Part of the goal of the Norquay planning process is to direct higher density development into neighbourhood centres, i.e. locations with convenient access to shops, services, and transit (City of Vancouver, 2010b). The Norquay Plan addresses the content of this credit in that the plan states “city- wide policies should continue guiding actions in support of transit… Increasing service through extending hours and frequency, particularly with the prospect of local population growth” (p.65). However, “Locations with Reduced Automobile Dependence” (SLLc3) pertains specifically to existing site conditions, so the assessment for this credit would not be impacted by any direction contained within the Norquay Plan.  By default, the Norquay area would achieve the point for “Steep Slope Protection” (SLLc6) for not disturbing steep slopes, as there are no slopes in the neighbourhood steep enough to meet the credit’s definition of steep slopes. Similarly, Norquay would also be expected to achieve a point for “Site Design for Habitat or Wetland and Water Body Conservation” (SLLc7), as the planning area likely does not contain any land that would 22  meet the LEED-ND definition for significant native wildlife habitat, wetlands and water bodies. The Norquay Plan does not address these topics.  There are certain SLL credits for which Norquay would not meet the credit requirements based on existing features, but for which it is anticipated that new development will assist in meeting the LEED-ND requirements, i.e. as gradual redevelopment occurs in accordance with existing City by-laws and policy. These credits are “Brownfield Redevelopment” (SLLc2) and “Bicycle Network and Storage” (SLLc4).  The Norquay Plan does not cover brownfield remediation or any of the content of “Brownfield Redevelopment” (SLLc2). However, there are a few sites within the Norquay planning area that will likely be documented as brownfield sites in the near future (e.g. existing gas stations), and would likely require remediation as part of the redevelopment process.  Norquay would be expected to achieve one of two points available for this credit, as redevelopment occurs in the area. The Norquay Plan provides increased incentive to redevelop such sites in that the revised zoning in the new plan allows for additional increases in density.  While there is an existing City of Vancouver bicycle network that would enable the Norquay area to meet the bicycle network requirements of “Bicycle Network and Storage” (SLLc4), there is currently insufficient bike storage available. In addition, while the current City Parking By-law specifies significant bike storage (both for building occupants and visitors) to be provided in new buildings, as well as changing/shower facilities (as per Section 3.7.4.10 of the Building By-law), the By-law requirements do not directly align with the specific metrics specified under LEED-ND (City of Vancouver, 2011a,b).  However, the requirements are sufficiently comparable that new development in Norquay would be expected to generally achieve the requirements of this credit. In addition, the Norquay Plan emphasizes the importance of improving the neighbourhood’s bike network, and planned additional network connections are noted. Increased bike parking is also anticipated, as new development occurs in accordance with the City Parking By-law. 23   The Norquay area would not be expected to achieve any points under SLLc5, “Housing and Jobs Proximity,” as the proposed new residential density significantly exceeds existing jobs in the area, and the Norquay Plan does not indicate that any new jobs are expected for the area. Currently there are approximately 1400 full-time-equivalent jobs within Norquay, and this number is expected to remain approximately the same under the Norquay Plan (Cheng, 2012). The Norquay Plan does not discuss job creation, addressing this topic only in relation to broader City planning processes, in that an overarching goal for the City’s neighbourhood centres planning program, as per the Vancouver CityPlan (City of Vancouver, 1995), is:  To create lively neighbourhood centres that provide residents with a variety of housing, jobs, and services, and that become the public heart of each neighbourhood. Neighbourhood centres will help the environment by reducing the need to travel long distances from home to jobs and services. (City of Vancouver, 2010b, p.6)  Norquay would also not be expected to achieve the points available for credits “Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies” (SLLc8) and “Long-Term Conservation Management of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies” (SLLc9) as the area does not contain sensitive habitat (as per LEED-ND criteria) and the Norquay Plan does not speak to any planned habitat restoration initiatives.  c. Neighbourhood Pattern and Design (NPD)  Prerequisites  The Norquay Plan addresses many aspects of the three NPD prerequisites. “Compact Development” (NPDp2) would be achieved outright, as existing densities far exceed the minimum densities required by this prerequisite, i.e. seven dwelling units/acre for residential and 0.5 FAR for non-residential. The Norquay Plan also specifically addresses this topic in that a key feature of this plan is the rezoning of portions of this planning area such that increased densities are possible. 24   Norquay would not achieve “Walkable Streets” (NPDp1) based on existing neighbourhood features. The Norquay Plan addresses this prerequisite in several sections, such as on page 19 under Objective 5 “Improve Safe and Enjoyable Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections while Seeking to Minimize Local Traffic Impacts,” and in more detail on page 63 under “Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements,” noting that a key goal is to complete the sidewalk network. Numerous planned improvements to the pedestrian realm are outlined in Appendix A of the Norquay Plan.  The Norquay Plan also addresses the minimum building-height-to-street-width ratio aspect of this credit, through increased densities provided along Kingsway, as well as other aspects of this prerequisite related to desirable street frontages. Once planned sidewalk improvements are undertaken, and as anticipated redevelopment occurs along Kingsway in accordance with the Norquay Plan, the area would likely meet the requirements of “Walkable Streets” (NPDp1).  “Connected and Open Community” (NPDp3) is an example of a prerequisite that makes LEED-ND challenging to apply to existing neighbourhoods.  The requirements of this prerequisite include minimum intersection densities and maximum distances between intersections within the neighbourhood. For the purposes of this LEED-ND assessment, the neighbourhood performs extremely well in terms of intersection density, as the requirements of this prerequisite are a minimum of 54 intersections per square kilometre (140 intersections per square mile), and Norquay has approximately 260 intersections per square kilometre (673 intersections per square mile). Moreover, the Norquay Plan indicates that additional intersections will be added in the future, further improving the neighbourhood’s connectivity. However, “Connected and Open Community” (NPDp3) also contains specific criteria for block length along the planning area boundary, and there are a few blocks along the Norquay boundary that are longer than the maximum 250 metres (800 feet) allowed; for example, along 41st Avenue between Nanaimo Street and Wales Street. The Norquay Plan addresses this issue on page 48, noting that long blocks in the neighbourhood, typically resulting from the impact of diagonally oriented Kingsway Street on the surrounding street network, create “situations where pedestrians must travel further than is typical to cross the street or connect to Kingsway from the 25  surrounding neighbourhoods.” While the Norquay Plan does seek to add intersections and improve connectivity within the neighbourhood, it does not specifically address all of these long blocks along the planning area boundary. There is a clause to this prerequisite that does allow for some flexibility with the requirements, for example if there are existing buildings that prevent through-connections to be made (as an existing street grid with existing buildings is extremely challenging to change). However, in the case of an existing neighbourhood such as Norquay, where there is an existing block structure with existing buildings throughout, it would not make sense to apply this clause to the entire area being assessed. Therefore, the Norquay area does not quite meet all of the requirements of “Connected and Open Community” (NPDp3), and future redevelopment in the area is not expected to change this.  Credits  NPD credits that are addressed by the Norquay Plan, and for which Norquay would be expected to achieve some points, include: “Walkable Streets” (NPDc1), “Compact Development” (NPDc2), “Mixed-Use Neighbourhood Centres” (NPDc3), “Mixed- Income Diverse Communities” (NPDc4), “Transit Facilities” (NPDc7), “Access to Civic and Public Spaces” (NPDc9), “Access to Recreation Facilities” (NPDc10), “Community Outreach and Involvement” (NPDc12), and “Tree-Lined and Shaded Streets” (NPDc14).  For Norquay, “Walkable Streets” (NPDc1) was assessed primarily in terms of what the Norquay Plan addressed. Existing conditions in Norquay were deemed likely to achieve only a few items under this credit, equivalent to approximately two points. However, this was not a comprehensive assessment; it is possible that existing conditions may achieve more points than this. The Norquay Plan does not specifically address some of the items available within the menu of items for this credit.  For example, the plan does not address target road speeds (items n and o), or height of ground-floor dwelling units (item k). However, the Norquay Plan does indicate that many of these items would likely be achieved over time, and this assessment has been conducted from this perspective.  The Norquay Plan indicates the area has the potential to achieve items a, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, 26  l, m, and p.  This is thirteen out of the total of sixteen items available, and corresponds to ten out of twelve points.  Existing densities in Norquay are approximately 20 units per acre on average, for most residential areas, and likely have an FAR of less than 2.5 in mixed-use areas along Kingsway. The Norquay Plan increases densities both in residential areas and along the Kingsway mixed-use corridor. At a 50% build-out of the new maximum densities allowed under the Plan, densities would be in the range of 50 units per acre on average for the residential areas, and upwards of 3.2 FAR for the mixed-use areas along Kingsway. This increases the points likely to be achieved for the Norquay area under “Compact Development” (NPDc2) from three points (for existing conditions) to five points.  For “Mixed-Use Neighbourhood Centres” (NPDc3), the Norquay Plan indicates a focus on maintaining and increasing retail, and encouraging local businesses along Kingsway. The quantity of diverse uses may increase if the quantity of smaller storefronts increases, as sites along Kingsway are redeveloped.  The score for Norquay for this credit could therefore be expected to increase from a current two points for the existing quantity of diverse uses, up to potentially three or four points for anticipated diverse uses.  The Norquay Plan proposes a significant increase in housing variety in the neighbourhood, which impacts the achievement of “Mixed-Income Diverse Communities” (NPDc4).  The existing neighbourhood has a large proportion of single- family homes, in particular, and likely would not achieve any points under this credit. The Norquay Plan proposes several new housing types for the neighbourhood, including mid-rise (six to eight stories, and occasionally up to ten stories) along Kingsway, and stacked townhouses and traditional rowhouses in existing RS-1 areas, in addition to increased duplexes, small infill units/cottages/laneway houses, and secondary suites. With the implementation of the new housing types proposed in the Norquay Plan (once rezoned areas are redeveloped approximately 50% according to new allowances under 27  the Norquay Plan), three points would likely be achieved for “Mixed-Income Diverse Communities” (NPDc4).  The Norquay Plan addresses “Transit Facilities” (NPDc7), stating a policy directive of “improving amenity at transit stops with shelters or other weather protection, benches, lighting, litter receptacles, and information” (p.65). While the Norquay Plan does not address the provision of bike parking at transit stops, this is not a requirement of the transit agency (Translink), and LEED-ND notes that bike parking may not necessarily be required if it is not a requirement of the transit agency. In general, the direction of the Norquay Plan indicates that Norquay will likely meet the criteria of this credit, for one point, once the planned improvements indicated in the Norquay Plan are implemented.  Norquay as it currently exists would not achieve “Access to Civic and Public Spaces” (NPDc9). However, the Norquay Plan proposes several new parks and public plazas. These will have a strong impact on the achievement of this credit, particularly as these proposed new amenities will be located in areas where there are also significant increases in density proposed. Therefore, the proportion of building entrances located within the required 400 metre (¼-mile) walk distance of public parks and plazas will likely increase to over 90% of total building entrances in the area. The new amenities (and co-located density) proposed under the Norquay Plan therefore will likely enable the area to achieve this credit, for one point.  Norquay has several existing parks of greater than 1 acre in size, that are spread throughout the neighbourhood, therefore existing conditions in Norquay would likely achieve “Access to Recreation Facilities” (NPDc10).  In addition, improvements to some parks are proposed as part of the Norquay Plan, in particular for Norquay Park. The Norquay Plan notes parks are “major existing amenities” (p.27) and notes that “As the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre grows and evolves over time, new amenities and facilities will be needed to ensure the continued livability and desirability of the area” (p.69).  28  For “Community Outreach and Involvement” (NPDc12), the Norquay area would be expected to achieve one of two available points, for the Norquay planning process itself.  Norquay already has street trees on the majority of streets. There are likely street trees on both sides of more than 60% of streets, providing shade over more than 40% of sidewalks, enabling Norquay to achieve both Options 1 and 2 of “Tree-Lined and Shaded Streets” (NPDc14) for two points. In addition, the Norquay Plan calls for increased street tree plantings along Kingsway and Clarendon streets, which could enable the area to achieve an additional point for Exemplary Performance for this credit, for providing street trees on 90% of streets and/or shading at least 60% of sidewalks.  NPD credits which the Norquay Plan addresses, but not sufficiently to achieve credit requirements, include: “Reduced Parking Footprint” (NPDc5), “Street Network” (NPDc6), “Visitability and Universal Design” (NPDc11), and “Local Food Production” (NPDc13).  For “Reduced Parking Footprint” (NPDc5), the existing Norquay area does not currently meet credit requirements. City of Vancouver parking policy would allow the Norquay area to achieve the surface parking criteria of this credit over time, as large surface parking lots are typically no longer accepted as part of new development proposals, and are instead generally required to go underground, be tucked away from the main street entrance, or minimized in some respect. For the bike storage criteria of this credit, new development in the neighbourhood would generally achieve these requirements based on the City’s Parking By-law, as was the case with “Bicycle Network and Storage” (SLLc4). However, “Reduced Parking Footprint” (NPDc5) also contains criteria for carpool and shared-use vehicle parking spaces, and these requirements are not covered by existing City policy or by-laws, nor by the Norquay Plan, so the Norquay area would not be expected to achieve this credit.  Certain aspects of “Street Network” (NPDc6), such as intersection density, connectivity, and block length, are addressed in the Norquay Plan. However, the Norquay area does 29  not meet the requirements for this credit, as many existing blocks in the neighbourhood exceed the maximum lengths listed. This was discussed in the assessment for “Connected and Open Community” (NPDp3), and is not expected to change in the near future.  The Norquay Plan addresses “Visitability and Universal Design” (NPDc11), noting that housing (p.28) and parks (p.70) should be designed with accessibility in mind. However, the “Visitability and Universal Design” credit specifies the ADA-ABA Accessibility Guidelines as the standard to be followed, and these guidelines include many specific requirements. The City of Vancouver has developed its own “Accessible Street Design” guidelines and, while this document references the ADA-ABA Accessibility Guidelines, the City does not enforce their application, preferring to address each situation on a case- by-case basis using a “more holistic approach” (City of Vancouver, 2012b). The City is gradually retrofitting Vancouver streets to improve accessibility, installing more than 200 new curb ramps every year, with approximately one third of the city’s street corners remaining to be retrofitted (City of Vancouver, 2011c). Existing City policy and the Norquay plan are likely not specific or rigorous enough on this topic to indicate that the Norquay area would necessarily comply with “Visitability and Universal Design” (NPDc11) requirements in the near future.  The Norquay area does not meet the criteria of “Local Food Production” (NPDc13), as there are no community gardens or farmers’ markets within the Norquay boundary. The Norquay Plan notes a policy directive for the area to “expand urban food growing and education in Norquay by proactive use of underutilized space (i.e. community gardens)” (p.70), but does not address this topic sufficiently to meet the “Local Food Production” (NPDc13) requirements.  There are two NPD credits that the Norquay Plan does not address: “Transportation Demand Management” (NPDc8) and “Neighbourhood Schools” (NPDc15).  The existing Norquay area would be expected to achieve “Neighbourhood Schools” (NPDc15) as Norquay has two elementary schools, Cunningham and Norquay, which are located such that at least 50% of the area’s dwelling units are within a 800 metre (½-mile) walk. 30  Existing conditions in the Norquay area would not meet the requirements of “Transportation Demand Management” (NPDc8), which provides a menu of compliance pathways, including: a comprehensive TDM program, subsidized transit passes, developer-sponsored transit, vehicle-sharing programs, and unbundling of parking. Several “car2go” vehicles may be found in Norquay, but these would not qualify for the vehicle-sharing component of this credit, as they are not permanent vehicle-sharing locations. While the Norquay Plan addresses movement and circulation in the neighbourhood, and discusses planned improvements to encourage walking, cycling, and transit, it does not address the specific TDM strategies covered under “Transportation Demand Management” (NPDc8).  ii. Central Broadway  d. Summary of Results  Similar to Norquay, there were certain LEED-ND prerequisites and credits for which the Central Broadway planning area would be expected to meet requirements based on existing neighbourhood features; these are summarized in Figure 5, which provides a mock LEED-ND scorecard for the existing Central Broadway area. Other prerequisites or credits would be expected to be achieved as redevelopment occurs in accordance with existing city-wide policy, guidelines, and/or by-laws; these are summarized in Figure 6. Finally, additional prerequisites and credits would be expected to be achieved should redevelopment occur in accordance with the Draft Guidelines, as summarized in Figure 7.  According to this assessment, the existing Central Broadway planning area would be expected to score quite well in terms of LEED-ND criteria. While it would not be expected to meet all LEED-ND prerequisites, it would likely achieve in the range of 46 points, equivalent to the LEED-ND “Certified” level (in terms of points). The majority of the points would be expected to come from the Neighbourhood Pattern and Design section, where the area could potentially garner 24 out of 44 possible points, as well as 31  one exemplary performance point. These points reflect the density of the area, the mix of uses, proximity to amenities, and other features of the streets that contribute to their walkability.  Central Broadway, in its current state, would also likely achieve a fair number of points from the Smart Location and Linkage section, potentially garnering 18 out of 27 possible points, as well as two exemplary performance points. These points primarily reflect that the development in this area is on infill, previously developed sites, and in a location with reduced automobile dependence. Existing conditions in Central Broadway would likely garner only two out of 29 points for Green Infrastructure and Buildings, and one out of four prerequisites in this section. This reflects that the existing buildings and infrastructure that exist in Central Broadway today have, for the most part, not been built to today’s high standards for green building. This is not surprising, given that many of these buildings were built some time ago.  The second part of this assessment examined how the new Draft Guidelines might impact the area’s performance in terms of LEED-ND, were the area to redevelop over time with these guidelines in place. The Draft Guidelines include the following sections: General Design Considerations; Uses; Guidelines Pertaining to Regulations of the Zoning and Development or Parking By-laws; Architectural Components; Open Space; Landscaping; and Utilities, Sanitation, and Public Services (City of Vancouver, 2012c).  The Draft Guidelines do not address most of the Smart Location and Linkage section. They address about half of the Green Infrastructure and Buildings credits, and a little under half of the Neighbourhood Pattern and Design section. The Draft Guidelines cover certain NPD topics, such as aspects of “Walkable Streets” (NPDc1), in a fair amount of detail.  While these Draft Guidelines only cover a selection of the criteria within LEED-ND, when they are taken into consideration along with future redevelopment of the area, the area’s LEED-ND score would likely increase from 46 to approximately 59 points, with only one prerequisite expected to remain unachieved. This would be equivalent to the LEED-ND “Silver” level (in terms of points), and only one point short of “Gold.” The 32  Draft Guidelines would assist Central Broadway in improving its LEED-ND score in all three sections of the rating system. The biggest impact of the Draft Guidelines is on the Green Infrastructure and Buildings section, with new development expected to achieve three out of four prerequisites, with only one prerequisite, “Construction Activity Pollution Prevention” (GIBp4), remaining unachieved for relatively small sites (under 600m2).  The following sections of this report describe Central Broadway’s individual prerequisite and credit assessments for the LEED-ND Smart Location and Linkage and Neighbourhood Pattern and Design criteria. Greater detail is provided in Appendix B. The Central Broadway prerequisite and credit assessments for the LEED-ND Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria are provided later in this report, as these were considered in conjunction with the LEED-ND assessment for Norquay, due to the content of the Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria being such that it is typically dealt with at the city-wide scale; for this same reason, the detailed assessments for both Norquay and Central Broadway in relation to the Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria are provided together in Appendix C. 33  Figure 5. Mock LEED-ND Scorecard for Central Broadway – Existing Neighbourhood 34  Figure 6. Mock LEED-ND Scorecard for Central Broadway – with Redevelopment According to Existing City Policy/By-laws  35  Figure 7. Mock LEED-ND Scorecard for Central Broadway – with Draft Guidelines and Redevelopment  36  e. Smart Location and Linkage (SLL)  Prerequisites  As with Norquay, the SLL prerequisites would all be readily achieved by existing conditions within the Central Broadway planning area. The requirements of these SLL prerequisites pertain specifically to existing site conditions, therefore their assessment would not be impacted by any direction contained within the Draft Guidelines.  Credits  Credits that the Central Broadway area would achieve automatically due to existing site features include: “Preferred Locations” (SLLc1), “Locations with Reduced Automobile Dependence” (SLLc3), and “Site Design for Habitat or Wetland and Water Body Conservation” (SLLc7). The Central Broadway area would be expected to achieve all ten points available under “Preferred Locations” (SLLc1), due to it being an infill site with many intersections, and would achieve an exemplary performance point for having such a high intersection density of approximately 335 intersections per square kilometre (870 intersections per square mile). Central Broadway would also be expected to achieve all available points, as well as an exemplary performance point, for “Reduced Automobile Dependence” (SLLc3); this is due to the high level of transit service available within the neighbourhood which, while it may fall short of meeting the extremely high demand for transit in this part of the city, is exemplary according to LEED-ND standards. Central Broadway would also be expected to achieve a point for “Site Design for Habitat or Wetland and Water Body Conservation” (SLLc7) as the planning area does not contain significant habitat, wetlands or water bodies (as per LEED-ND definitions). The Draft Guidelines do not address Site Design for Habitat or Wetland and Water Body Conservation” (SLLc7), and the requirements of “Preferred Locations” (SLLc1) and “Locations with Reduced Automobile Dependence” (SLLc3) pertain specifically to existing site conditions, so the Central Broadway assessment for these credits would not be impacted by any direction contained within the Draft Guidelines. 37   Credits that Central Broadway would not likely achieve include: “Steep Slope Protection” (SLLc6), “Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies” (SLLc8), and “Long-Term Conservation Management of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies” (SLLc9). Central Broadway would not be expected to achieve “Steep Slope Protection” (SLLc6) as the Central Broadway area contains slopes with greater than 15% grade, and the Draft Guidelines do not address avoiding or mediating impacts on steep slopes. “Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies” (SLLc8) and “Long-Term Conservation Management of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies” (SLLc9) pertain to the protection, restoration, and long-term management planning for native ecological habitats, wetlands, and water bodies. As the Central Broadway area does not currently contain sensitive habitat and the Draft Guidelines do not address future habitat restoration projects within this planning area, the neighbourhood would not be expected to achieve these credits in the near future.  The Central Broadway area would be expected to meet the requirements of “Brownfields Redevelopment” (SLLc2) as anticipated redevelopment occurs in the coming years. The Draft Guidelines do not directly address brownfield remediation. However, as with Norquay, there are a few sites within the Central Broadway planning area that will likely be documented as brownfield sites in the near future (e.g. existing gas stations or dry- cleaning establishments), and will likely require remediation as part of the redevelopment process. Future redevelopment of such sites is anticipated based on existing trends and ongoing gradual redevelopment of the Central Broadway area.  Central Broadway would be expected to achieve “Bicycle Network and Storage” (SLLc4) as redevelopment occurs based on direction contained within existing City by-laws. While there is an existing City of Vancouver bicycle network that would enable the Central Broadway area to meet the network requirements of this credit, there is currently insufficient bike storage available. In addition, while the current City Parking By-law contains significant bike storage requirements, both for building occupants and visitors, as well as changing/shower facilities (covered under Section 3.7.4.10 of the Building By- 38  law), the City Parking By-law requirements do not directly align with the metrics specified under LEED-ND (City of Vancouver, 2011a,b).  However, the requirements are sufficiently comparable such that new development in Central Broadway could be expected to achieve this credit. The Draft Guidelines do not address bike storage.  Central Broadway would be expected to achieve points for “Housing and Jobs Proximity” (SLLc5) based on guidance for the Draft Guidelines which indicates that long-term goals for this area are in alignment with the intent of this credit, as two of the six key planning program objectives are to (a) “provide enough job space to meet economic needs,” and (b) “achieve an appropriate mix of commercial and residential land uses” (City of Vancouver, 2010c). The Central Broadway area would likely achieve two out of three available points for this credit, via Options 2 or 3, as a significant number of new jobs are anticipated in the area in the coming years (City of Vancouver, 2006), the Central Broadway area is surrounded by many residential buildings, and the Canada Line will run through the centre of this area; all of these features contribute to meeting the requirements of “Housing and Jobs Proximity” (SLLc5).  f. Neighbourhood Pattern and Design (NPD)  Prerequisites  Existing conditions within Central Broadway would allow the area to automatically meet all NPD prerequisites. One of the key objectives of the Draft Guidelines is to “ensure the public realm of the street is attractive, sustainable, pedestrian-oriented and is supportive of uses at grade,” (City of Vancouver, 2012c, p.2) and several sections of the Draft Guidelines cover aspects of “Walkable Streets” (NPDp1). The Draft Guidelines address the topic of “Compact Development” (NPDp2) in that they provide guidance for how additional density may best be accommodated within the Central Broadway area. The Draft Guidelines do not address the criteria of “Connected and Open Community” (NPDp3), such as block length and street connectivity.  39  Credits  NPD credits that Central Broadway would likely achieve based on existing conditions are: “Walkable Streets” (NPDc1), “Compact Development” (NPDc2), “Mixed-Use Neighbourhood Centres” (NPDc3), “Mixed-Income Diverse Communities” (NPDc4), “Transportation Demand Management” (NPDc8), “Access to Civic and Public Space” (NPDc9), “Access to Recreation Facilities” (NPDc10), “Tree-Lined and Shaded Streets” (NPDc14), and “Neighbourhood Schools” (NPDc15).  For “Walkable Streets” (NPDc1), existing conditions along Central Broadway would achieve points for most options listed, for eight out of twelve available points.  Of the items that would not be achieved, items i (on-street parking requirements), n and o (street speeds) are not addressed in the Draft Guidelines. Item i cannot be achieved as the bus lane along both sides of Broadway during rush hour displaces on-street parking. While rapid transit planning is underway for the Central Broadway area, it is not possible to ascertain at this time whether a future system would allow for street parking at all times along the street. Items n and o cannot be achieved as streets in the area are generally not designed for speeds of less than 40km/hr, and this is not expected to change in the near future. Item j is not achieved by existing conditions because, while there are continuous sidewalks throughout the area, these are not all at least ten feet wide on all retail and mixed-use blocks. Item j is addressed in the Draft Guidelines, which states: “Buildings should be set back from the street curb a minimum sidewalk depth of 5.5 meters (approximately 18 feet) wide between curb and building front”  (City of Vancouver, 2012c, p.15). Item k (elevated finished floor level for ground-floor dwelling units), is not achieved based on existing conditions, as the majority of ground-floor dwelling units are not 24 inches above the sidewalk grade. Item k is addressed in the Draft Guidelines, which states that “Residential uses at grade are encouraged where the prevailing context at grade is also residential” and that “Residential uses at grade should…be raised a minimum of 0.6 meters (2 feet) above the street level” (p.10). So it is anticipated that, as redevelopment of ground-floor dwelling units occurs within Central Broadway, an increasing proportion of ground-floor dwelling units in the area will be 24 inches or more 40  above sidewalk grade, and the requirements of item k will be met. Therefore, Central Broadway, if built out in accordance with the Draft Guidelines, would likely achieve items j and k in addition to items met by existing conditions, corresponding to ten out of twelve points for “Walkable Streets” (NPDc1).  For “Compact Development” (NPDc2), Central Broadway’s current actual built density, an approximate average FSR of 2.25-3, would correspond to the achievement of five points under this credit. As gradual redevelopment continues throughout Central Broadway, the average FSR would be expected to increase. However, the current limit for conditional FSR in Central Broadway is 3; to obtain additional density, projects must go through the rezoning process. Nonetheless, Central Broadway would be expected to achieve the full six points available under this credit, as redevelopment occurs in the area. As part of the current planning process for Central Broadway, the City is proposing raising the conditional FSR limit to 5, for commercial-only development. This would enable a greater number of projects to be built to 5 FSR, without requiring a rezoning. The Draft Guidelines do not refer to these proposed changes in FSR, but provide guidance on incorporating larger projects into the Central Broadway area.  Central Broadway would be expected to achieve the maximum number of points available under “Mixed-Use Neighbourhood Centres” (NPDc3), due to the large number of uses already existing along the majority of streets in the Central Broadway area. The Draft Guidelines encourage maintaining and increasing diverse uses at grade in new development, stating “At-grade floor space fronting onto Broadway should be designed to accommodate active commercial, retail, or service uses” (p.10).  For “Mixed-Income Diverse Communities” (NPDc4), Central Broadway does not contain sufficient non-market housing to meet the criteria for Option 2 (Affordable Housing) of this credit, and there was insufficient data available to determine whether existing conditions along Central Broadway would meet the criteria of Option 1 (Diversity of Housing Types). Current residential buildings within the Central Broadway area display a range in buildings types and dwelling unit sizes and, while the area would be expected to 41  achieve at least one point under Option 1, the neighbourhood’s actual score is likely higher. The Draft Guidelines do not directly address housing diversity or affordable housing, and it is unclear whether new development in the area would contribute towards the achievement of more points under this credit.  For “Transportation Demand Management” (NPDc8), Central Broadway would likely achieve one out of two available points, for a local vehicle sharing program, as there are numerous car-share locations throughout the area, located in close proximity to building entrances (as well, many “car2go” vehicles may be found). Existing City by-laws, City policy, and the Draft Guidelines do not address the other credit requirements sufficiently to achieve additional points under this credit.  The Central Broadway planning area would be expected to achieve the points available for “Access to Civic and Public Space” (NPDc9) and “Access to Recreation Facilities” (NPDc10), due to the existing parks, plazas, and community gardens in the area. The Draft Guidelines do not address the provision of these amenities.  Existing conditions within the Central Broadway area would likely enable it to achieve the points available under “Tree-Lined and Shaded Streets” (NPDc14) and “Neighbourhood Schools” (NPDc15). The Draft Guidelines do not address neighbourhood schools, but there are sufficient schools within or close to the Central Broadway area to meet the “Neighbourhood Schools” (NPDc15) requirements, for one point. While portions of Broadway do not have street trees, there are sufficient plantings along Broadway and along many of the sidestreets and adjacent streets that fall within the Central Broadway planning area, such that it is likely that 60% of streets within the planning area have trees planted every 40 feet. Some of these trees were planted relatively recently, and are either columnar varieties or are quite small, and so currently likely do not shade more than 40% of sidewalks.  However, the credit requirements allow for shading provided by trees within ten years of installation. This combined with the allowance for shade provided by other structures (e.g. awnings), means that the Central Broadway area would likely achieve Option 2 as well, thus garnering two points for this 42  credit. The Draft Guidelines refer to the Draft Principles and Objectives For Street Trees In Central Broadway, which state: “Plant enough trees to achieve full canopy coverage of pedestrian areas within 15 years…Plant at least a single row of trees, and where building setbacks allow (such as corner conditions) seek a double row or a single row of large species trees” (City of Vancouver, 2012d, p.1). The Draft Guidelines strongly support increased street tree planting, with the Draft Principles and Objectives For Street Trees In Central Broadway emphasizing the provision of shade to sidewalks, so it is likely that Central Broadway will obtain sufficient coverage in the future to achieve an additional point for Exemplary Performance.  NPD credits that are not likely to be achieved outright by existing conditions within Central Broadway include: “Reduced Parking Footprint” (NPDc5), “Street Network” (NPDc6), “Transit Facilities” (NPDc7), “Visitability and Universal Design” (NPDc11), “Community Outreach and Involvement” (NPDc12), and “Local Food Production” (NPDc13).  For “Reduced Parking Footprint” (NPDc5), existing conditions in the Central Broadway area would meet parking footprint requirements of this credit. The second part of this credit addresses bike parking/storage and shower facilities in new multi-unit residential and non-residential buildings, as well as carpool/shared-use vehicle parking for non- residential and mixed-use buildings. The majority of existing buildings in Central Broadway do not meet this aspect of the “Reduced Parking Footprint” (NPDc5) requirements. New development in the neighbourhood would generally achieve the bike parking/storage and shower facilities requirements, based on the City’s Parking By-law (and Section 3.7.4.10 of the Building By-law), as was the case with “Bicycle Network and Storage” (SLLc4) (City of Vancouver, 2011a,b). However, the requirements for carpool and shared-use vehicle parking spaces are not covered by existing City policy or by-laws, nor by the Draft Guidelines, so the Central Broadway area would not be expected to achieve this credit. The Draft Guidelines also do not address bike storage.  43  Existing conditions within Central Broadway would not achieve “Street Network” (NPDc6), as many existing blocks in the neighbourhood are too long and exceed the maximum distance between intersections (120 metres; 400 feet) required by this credit. This topic is not addressed within the Draft Guidelines.  “Transit Facilities” (NPDc7) would also not be achieved, as many transit stops in the area do not have all of the features required by this credit. This topic is not addressed within the Draft Guidelines.  For “Visitability and Universal Design” (NPDc11), the Central Broadway area does not currently meet the requirements of either Option 1 (20% of new dwelling units designed in accordance with the ICC/ANSI A117.1 standard), or Option 2 (100% of public rights- of-way been retrofitted in accordance with ADA-ABA Accessibility Guidelines). While it may be possible in the future for the area to achieve Option 2 if all public rights-of-way are retrofitted appropriately, in accordance with the specific requirements of the ADA- ABA Accessibility Guidelines, current conditions do not meet the criteria of this credit. The City of Vancouver has developed its own “Accessible Street Design” guidelines and, while this document references the ADA-ABA Accessibility Guidelines, the City does not enforce their application, preferring to address each situation on a case-by-case basis using a “more holistic approach” (City of Vancouver, 2012b). The City is gradually retrofitting Vancouver streets to improve accessibility, installing more than 200 new curb ramps every year, with approximately one third of the city’s street corners remaining to be retrofitted (City of Vancouver, 2011c). This topic is not addressed within the Draft Guidelines. Existing City policy is likely not specific or rigorous enough on this topic to indicate that the Central Broadway area would necessarily comply with “Visitability and Universal Design” (NPDc11) requirements in the near future.  The requirements of “Community Outreach and Involvement” (NPDc12) would be partially achieved via the Central Broadway planning process itself (as was the case with Norquay), for one of two available points.  44  The existing Central Broadway area does not achieve the criteria of “Local Food Production” (NPDc13).  The planning area does contain community gardens, such as along the 6th Avenue railroad tracks (between Maple and Fir) and at City Hall.  However, there is insufficient community garden area in total to meet the LEED-ND requirements. The Central Broadway area also would not achieve Options 2 or 3 for this credit, as developers in the area generally do not purchase CSA shares for new residents, and the closest farmers’ markets (Kitsilano and Thornton Park) are not within an 800 metre (½- mile) walk of the Central Broadway area’s geographic centre.  Therefore, the Central Broadway area would not be expected to achieve this credit based on existing conditions. This topic is addressed within the Draft Guidelines in Section 8.2, “Site Landscaping,” which states: “For those projects that are suited by location, orientation, land use mix and design for growing food, the applicant should demonstrate how they will provide urban agriculture opportunities that meet the Urban Agriculture Guidelines For The Private Realm” (p.21). In addition, section 5.1, “Roofs,” states that the design of roofs should support urban agriculture, among other objectives. However, the City’s Urban Agriculture Guidelines For The Private Realm specify a minimum of 24 square feet of garden space per dwelling unit, provided for 30% of dwelling units in a building, which is less than the LEED-ND minimum of 60 square feet per dwelling unit, for all units in a building (City of Vancouver, 2009a). While new development in the area may be encouraged to contain some space for urban agriculture, it would not be expected to meet the LEED-ND requirements for this credit.  iii. Green Infrastructure and Buildings (GIB)  The content of the LEED-ND Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria is such that it is typically dealt with at the city-wide scale. For this reason, the Central Broadway and Norquay assessments for this section are summarized together below, and the detailed assessments for both Norquay and Central Broadway in relation to the Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria are provided together in Appendix C.   45  Prerequisites  Neither Norquay nor Central Broadway contain a certified green building, which is the requirement of the first GIB prerequisite.  However, Central Broadway currently has one completed building project which is attempting LEED certification; this project is nearing completion of its LEED certification review and certification is anticipated. As certification is likely imminent, existing conditions within Central Broadway were deemed to contain one certified green building, for the purposes of this LEED-ND assessment. Norquay contains building projects that have been registered as LEED projects with the CaGBC, but have not yet begun the actual certification review process. However, Norquay would be expected to meet this prerequisite in the near future, as these buildings certify. The Norquay Plan does not address green building certifications. The Draft Guidelines refer to green building certifications in that they state development projects should perform “at a LEED NCTM equivalent level of Gold or Platinum” (p.9) but do not require actual certification.  Neither Norquay nor Central Broadway would be expected to meet the requirements of “Minimum Building Energy Efficiency” (GIBp2), or “Minimum Building Water Efficiency” (GIBp3), as the City’s energy and water efficiency requirements for most new buildings, except for new one and two family dwellings, are not sufficiently stringent. The Norquay Plan does not address building energy and water efficiency. The Draft Guidelines, however, direct new building projects to perform “at a LEED NCTM equivalent level of Gold or Platinum” (p.9), which would require minimum building energy and water efficiencies sufficient to meet the requirements of these LEED-ND prerequisites.  The majority of new buildings constructed within the Central Broadway area are expected to follow these guidelines, as most projects will likely be seeking the conditional FSR allowance that requires adherence with the guidelines. Therefore, the majority of new building projects in Central Broadway would be expected to meet the requirements of these two LEED-ND prerequisites.  46  Neither Norquay nor Central Broadway would be expected to meet “Construction Activity Pollution Prevention” (GIBp4), as the City of Vancouver only requires an erosion and sedimentation control plan for large lot development (greater than 600m2). Neither the Norquay Plan nor the Draft Guidelines address construction activity pollution prevention.  Credits  For the first GIB credit, “Certified Green Building,” existing conditions in Norquay and Central Broadway would not be expected to garner any points under this credit, as certified green buildings comprise only a fraction of existing development in Central Broadway, and no certified buildings currently exist in Norquay. The Norquay Plan does not address green building certifications. As previously noted, the Draft Guidelines direct new building projects to perform “at a LEED NCTM equivalent level of Gold or Platinum” (p.9), but do not require actual certification. However, both Norquay and Central Broadway would be expected to achieve some points under this credit as redevelopment occurs in these areas according to existing City of Vancouver policy, as the City’s current Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning requires all projects that undergo rezoning (that can reasonably fit within LEED criteria) to submit proof of application for LEED certification. In Central Broadway, rezonings constitute approximately one third of new building projects, which would correspond to approximately three out of five points for this credit. The proportion of new development in Norquay requiring rezoning is expected to be similar to Central Broadway.  Existing conditions in Norquay and Central Broadway would not be expected to meet the requirements of the “Building Energy Efficiency” credit (GIBc2). As redevelopment occurs in these areas, rezoning projects would be expected to achieve six points for energy efficiency according to LEED 2009 NC, as per the energy efficiency requirements of the City’s current Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings (City of Vancouver, 2010d). However, as rezoning projects will likely constitute less than 90% of new development in Norquay and Central Broadway, and “Building Energy Efficiency” (GIBc2) requires 47  compliance of at least 90% of new development, this would not be sufficient to meet GIBc2 requirements. The Norquay Plan does not address building energy efficiency. The Draft Guidelines do address aspects of energy efficiency, but not specify overall building energy efficiency requirements, beyond the basic requirement for projects to perform at a LEED-NC Gold or Platinum level. This requirement would not be sufficient to meet energy efficiency levels necessary to achieve any “Building Energy Efficiency” (GIBc2) points under LEED-ND.  Existing conditions in Norquay and Central Broadway would not be expected to meet the requirements of “Building Water Efficiency” (GIBc3). The City’s current Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning requires one LEED-NC water efficiency point, which equates to a 30% reduction in water usage, as per LEED 2009 NC. This does not correspond to a sufficient reduction in water usage to achieve one point under the LEED- ND “Building Water Efficiency” credit (GIBc3), which requires a 40% reduction in water usage. In addition, the requirements for GIBc3 apply to all new development, whereas requirements in the City’s Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning would only apply to rezoning projects. The Norquay Plan does not address building water efficiency. The Draft Guidelines do address aspects of water efficiency, but do not specify overall building water efficiency requirements, beyond the basic requirement for projects to perform at a LEED-NC Gold or Platinum level.  Existing conditions in Norquay and Central Broadway would not be expected to meet the requirements of the “Water-Efficient Landscaping” credit (GIBc4). The City of Vancouver currently has no landscape irrigation water efficiency requirements, so landscaping associated with the majority of new construction in Norquay and Central Broadway would not be expected to achieve the requirements of this credit. The City of Vancouver does have Water Wise Landscape Guidelines, which the majority of new construction requiring a rezoning would be expected to follow (City of Vancouver, 2009b). In addition, the Draft Guidelines state: “Applicants are encouraged to incorporate water infiltration and retention features, such as green roofs on concrete frame buildings, and natural rainwater management approaches such as permeable surfaces, swales, and 48  water detention zones” (p.9). However, this is only encouraged, and would likely not be demanded of all rezoning projects and projects seeking conditional FSR allowances. In addition, this wording does not specifically refer to water efficiency in landscaping, but rather landscaping that allows for onsite rainwater management (which often, due to the nature of the plantings, does not require irrigation). The Norquay Plan only states: “Site Coverage and Impermeable Material Area Limits; Limits should be used to ensure effective storm-water management, however, limits will likely be higher than typical for a residential neighbourhood to accommodate the increased footprint of medium-density ground-oriented housing” (p.34). “Water-Efficient Landscaping” (GIBc4) also specifies that both new and existing landscaping must meet these requirements, so even if all new development in Norquay and Central Broadway were in compliance, these areas would still not meet the requirements of this credit.  Neither Norquay nor Central Broadway would be expected to achieve “Existing Building Reuse” (GIBc5), nor “Historic Resource Preservation and Adaptive Use” (GIBc6), as it is not possible to ensure that no historic buildings will be demolished or cultural landscapes altered, a requirement of both of these credits. While the Vancouver Heritage Commission does strive to protect all heritage resources listed on the Register, as per City Heritage Policy and Guidelines, there is no overarching protection provided by City of Vancouver by-laws for buildings or landscapes that are not legally designated. The Norquay Plan and the Draft Guidelines do not address existing building reuse. The Norquay Plan addresses historic preservation in that one of the fourteen Community Directions for the neighbourhood states: “Maintain a strong single-family residential character in key areas of the neighbourhood, including retaining heritage houses” (p.12). However, this is not sufficient to ensure that no historic resources in the neighbourhood will be demolished. The Draft Guidelines contain more comprehensive guidance, stating “Council policy is to give special attention the resources on the Vancouver Heritage Register. Whenever possible, resources on the Register are to be conserved” (p.8). However, as with Norquay, this is not sufficient to ensure that no historic resources in the neighbourhood will be demolished, as per GIBc5 and GIBc6 requirements, particularly as 49  these guidelines only impact projects seeking a rezoning or approval of conditional density.  Neither Norquay nor Central Broadway would be expected to achieve “Minimized Site Disturbance in Design and Construction” (GIBc7). While development in these areas will occur on previously developed land, meeting the key requirements of this credit, two aspects of the City’s Protection of Trees By-law do not meet additional GIBc7 requirements: (1) the allowance for the removal of mature trees that are within the path of the building envelop or drainage system of a development project could result in the removal of many mature trees, potentially exceeding the criteria of this credit, and (2), it does not adequately address invasive species (City of Vancouver, 2010e). The Norquay Plan addresses tree preservation in that one of the fourteen Community Directions for the neighbourhood states: “New development should work to protect public views and mature trees” (p.12). The Draft Guidelines state: “Explore all options for retention of heritage listed resources, including trees” (p.8). However, the wording in the Norquay plan and Draft Guidelines is not sufficient to ensure that the proportion of mature trees protected will be sufficient to meet “Minimized Site Disturbance in Design and Construction” (GIBc7) standards, and neither policy document addresses the management of invasive species.  Neither existing conditions nor new development in Norquay and Central Broadway would be expected to achieve the “Stormwater Management” credit (GIBc8), as the City of Vancouver does not have any requirements regarding the retention of rainwater onsite. With regards to site coverage and impermeable material area limits, the Norquay Plan states: “Limits should be used to ensure effective storm-water management, however, limits will likely be higher than typical for a residential neighbourhood to accommodate the increased footprint of medium-density ground-oriented housing” (p.34, p.38 and p.40). The Draft Guidelines note that roofs should be designed to support water collection and detention, and that projects are “encouraged to incorporate water infiltration and retention features, such as green roofs on concrete frame buildings, and natural rainwater management approaches such as permeable surfaces, swales, and water detention zones” 50  (p.9). While both policy documents refer to onsite stormwater management, neither place strict requirements on all new development of a level comparable to the requirements of the LEED-ND “Stormwater Management” credit (GIBc8).  Existing conditions in Norquay and Central Broadway would not meet the requirements of “Heat Island Reduction” (GIBc9). However, the Draft Guidelines state that the design for roofs should support low albedo performance. As the majority of new buildings in the Central Broadway area are expected to follow these guidelines, Central Broadway would be expected meet “Heat Island Reduction” (GIBc9) requirements in the future, as redevelopment occurs in accordance with the Draft Guidelines. The Norquay Plan does not address the topic of urban heat island reduction.  Existing conditions in Central Broadway meet the requirements of “Solar Orientation” (GIBc10), as the blocks are oriented with their long axis running east-west.  This is the case for most blocks in Vancouver. However, Norquay is unusual in this respect, with many irregularly shaped blocks, with their long axes in a variety of directions, due to Kingsway’s northwest-southeast orientation. Norquay does not meet the requirements of this credit, and future redevelopment would not be expected to change this. The Norquay Plan does not address solar orientation. The Draft Guidelines specify that projects should “design each facade according to its orientation” (p.9) in order to maximize passive and active solar energy opportunities.  Existing conditions in Central Broadway and Norquay would not meet the requirements of “On-Site Renewable Energy Sources” (GIBc11), “Wastewater Management” (GIBc14), “Recycled Content in Infrastructure” (GIBc15), or “Light Pollution Reduction” (GIBc17). It is not expected that there would be sufficient renewable energy production or on-site wastewater management included within future development projects in these areas to meet the requirements of “On-Site Renewable Energy Sources” (GIBc11) and “Wastewater Management” (GIBc14). While it is likely that new infrastructure (built according to existing City of Vancouver specifications) in the Norquay and Central Broadway areas would contain some recycled content, this would 51  not be expected to meet the 50% threshold of “Recycled Content in Infrastructure” (GIBc15). The City of Vancouver currently has no specific policies or bylaws relating to light pollution reduction, and so future projects throughout the city would not be expected to meet the requirements of GIBc17. The Draft Guidelines address solar strategies for energy production in that they specify that the design of roofs should support solar collection and that “solar technologies” could be embedded within window systems, but not to the extent that they require any renewable energy production within new building projects (p.18). The Norquay Plan does not address renewable energy production. Neither the Draft Guidelines nor the Norquay Plan address wastewater management, recycled content in infrastructure, or light pollution reduction.  Existing conditions in Central Broadway and Norquay would not meet the requirements of “District Heating and Cooling” (GIBc12). Even after anticipated densification, there is not expected to be sufficient density in the Norquay area to make district energy viable (Compass Resource Management Ltd., 2007).  Central Broadway, however, has several sites with good potential for district energy systems. Both the Norquay Plan and the Draft Guidelines address this topic in that they require new buildings (i.e. rezoning projects within Norquay, and both conditional density approvals and rezoning projects within Central Broadway) to be designed to be easily connectable to a district energy system. However, the “District Heating and Cooling” (GIBc12) credit requirements specify a minimum of 80% of the heating and cooling consumption of new development would need to be met by a district plant in order to achieve this credit. It is unlikely that either Norquay or Central Broadway would achieve this level of district energy uptake by redevelopment projects within the near future, and so are not expected to achieve this credit.  Existing conditions within Central Broadway and Norquay would be expected to meet the requirements of “Infrastructure Energy Efficiency” (GIBc13), as the City of Vancouver has undertaken considerable effort to achieve significant energy efficiency within the infrastructural components covered by this credit. The Norquay Plan and the Draft Guidelines do not address this topic. 52   Existing facilities and City programs would allow Norquay and Central Broadway to achieve certain components of “Solid Waste Management Infrastructure” (GIBc16), but not enough to achieve the credit. While City solid waste management programs (e.g. recycling, composting, and construction waste management programs) are expanding, it is unclear at this time whether they will expand sufficiently such that the Norquay and Central Broadway would be likely to meet credit requirements within the near future. Neither the Norquay Plan nor the Draft Guidelines address solid waste management.  53  5 - DISCUSSION  i. Norquay and Central Broadway: Comparison of LEED-ND Assessments  Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of the LEED-ND assessments for Norquay and Central Broadway. These tables separate out points achieved by the existing neighbourhoods, points anticipated to be achieved when the new policy documents (the Norquay Plan for Norquay and the Draft Guidelines for Central Broadway) are considered, and points which would likely be achieved if the neighbourhoods continued to redevelop according to City policies and by-laws currently in place.  While Tables 1 and 2 provide an opportunity to compare the LEED-ND assessments for Norquay and Central Broadway directly, two key differences should be kept in mind:  (1) The existing Norquay and Central Broadway neighbourhoods represent very different neighbourhood contexts. Norquay is predominantly a low-rise, single-family home (RS-1) neighbourhood, with a central mixed-use strip which historically has been fairly low density, but is starting to densify. Central Broadway is at the core of the second largest commercial district in the province, and includes several retail districts, as well as many multi-unit residential buildings.  (2) The policy documents for these neighbourhoods which were reviewed for this assessment are very different in content and scope. The Norquay Plan is a completed neighbourhood plan, approved by City Council. The Draft Guidelines are design guidelines for Central Broadway, still in draft form, and not a finalized plan approved by Council. All policy directions contained within the Draft Guidelines were still evolving at the time of writing of this report. 54   Norquay and Central Broadway had similar assessment outcomes in terms of numerous LEED-ND criteria.  Many of the features that were similar would apply widely throughout the City of Vancouver, and these are discussed further in the next section, “City of Vancouver and LEED-ND.”  The Norquay and Central Broadway assessments for the Smart Location & Linkage section shared many similarities, with both being expected to achieve similar credits and an overall score of approximately 21-22 points for this section. Central Broadway would not be able to achieve “Steep Slope Protection” (SLLc6) due to the area’s topography, whereas this would not be an issue in Norquay. Central Broadway would likely achieve points for “Housing and Jobs Proximity” (SLLc5), as it is anticipated that jobs will increase in the area, and these jobs will be close to existing housing. However, jobs are not anticipated to increase significantly in Norquay, and existing jobs are currently far less than existing housing, so Norquay would not be expected to achieve any points under “Housing and Jobs Proximity” (SLLc5).  For Neighbourhood Pattern and Design, Norquay and Central Broadway were also expected to achieve similar credits, with a score of 28 overall. However, Central Broadway would be expected to achieve many of these based on existing conditions, while for Norquay many of these would likely be achieved based on the Norquay Plan. For example, for “Walkable Streets” (NPDc1), existing conditions in Central Broadway were assessed at eight points, while existing conditions in Norquay were assessed at only two points. This is because many buildings in Central Broadway are already achieving many components of this credit, as they are: built close to the sidewalk; with parking underground or in behind; with unshuttered, clear, glass windows for retail uses along street level; without blank facades; with a relatively high building-height-to-street-width- ratio; and with continuous sidewalks throughout the neighbourhood. Many of these features are indicated in the Norquay Plan, particularly for Kingsway, but are not yet in effect in Norquay. Similarly, for “Compact Development” (NPDc2) and “Mixed-Use Neighbourhood Centres” (NPDc3), Central Broadway already has significant density and 55  a high level of diverse services and uses throughout the area, while the Norquay Plan works to increase density and the diversity of uses in Norquay.  Finally, the assessments for Norquay and Central Broadway were also quite similar in terms of the Green Infrastructure and Buildings section, however Central Broadway was expected to achieve a few more points.  The Draft Guidelines address more items in this section, and so the neighbourhood would likely achieve more items, while the Norquay Plan addressed very few items in this section. 56  Table 1. Norquay LEED-ND Assessment Results  57  Table 2. Central Broadway LEED-ND Assessment Results  58  ii. City of Vancouver and LEED-ND  The Norquay and Central Broadway planning areas both scored well according to many LEED-ND metrics based on features of the existing neighbourhoods, as well as existing city-wide policy and by-laws.  Both areas benefited from certain characteristics of Vancouver, common throughout the city, which would enable many of the city’s neighbourhoods to score well under LEED-ND. Such characteristics include:  Street Grid The city’s street grid creates good connectivity throughout the majority of the city, as the blocks (in general) aren’t extremely long or large, and there are few cul-de-sacs.  The street grid includes an extensive system of back lanes, which contribute to the city’s high level of intersection density.  Previously Developed Land & Existing Infrastructure; Protection of Sensitive Lands Land in Vancouver is essentially all previously developed, so the majority of sites would meet LEED-ND criteria for previously developed, infill sites, which garner numerous points under LEED-ND. There is a system of water and wastewater infrastructure that serves the vast majority of the city, meeting this basic LEED-ND prerequisite requirement. Remaining valuable habitat within the city is, in general, protected, and there is only a very small portion of agricultural land (i.e. agriculturally-zoned land; even less land is actively farmed) still remaining within city boundaries.  Brownfield Redevelopment Developable land is at a premium in Vancouver, so the remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites is fairly common.  Compact Development Vancouver has relatively high levels of density, in comparison to many other North American cities, and in relation to LEED-ND standards. The City has been working for many years to encourage greater densification and, although there has been significant 59  resistance and “nimby-ism” by the public in response to these efforts, there is likely a greater tolerance of denser forms of development within Vancouver than in other North American cities. Such a tolerance is likely due to the city’s history of higher densities than the norm, and the significant pressure for more housing within city boundaries.  Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Vancouver’s system of bike routes and greenways is widespread throughout the city. Many areas being well-served, with access to several different routes. The majority of city streets have sidewalks on both sides.  Public Transit In general, much of Vancouver has good transit access, in relation to LEED-ND standards (e.g. a frequency of 60 trips per day garners one point under the “Reduced Automobile Dependence” credit of LEED-ND).  Reduced Surface Parking The development of large (e.g. greater than two acres in size) new surface parking lots rarely occurs in Vancouver. The high cost of land means that this is typically not a preferred land use and, in addition, the City typically does not allow this to occur. While there are areas in Vancouver where large surface parking lots are common, the norm is that these are no longer accepted as part of new development proposals, and are instead generally required to go underground, be tucked away from the main street entrance, or minimized in some respect.  Bike Storage/Shower Facilities/Carpool Requirements The City’s Parking By-law is quite progressive in terms of bike storage, shower facilities, and carpool/car-share parking options and requirements. The current City Parking By-law specifies significant bike storage (both for building occupants and visitors) to be provided in new buildings, as well as changing/shower facilities (as per Section 3.7.4.10 of the Building By-law), and Section 3.2.2 of the Parking By-Law incentivizes the provision of shared vehicle parking spots by reducing the total number of parking spots required, if 60  shared spots are provided. While these requirements do not align perfectly with those of LEED-ND, they are very similar (City of Vancouver, 2011a,b).  Car-share Services Vancouver benefits from being well-served by several car-share service providers, including Modo, Zipcar, and car2go.  Community Amenities Vancouver has parks, community centres, libraries, schools, and other community amenities that are generally well distributed throughout the city. The challenge for Vancouver is less a matter of whether these facilities are located relatively close to most neighbourhoods, and more a matter of balancing, maintaining, and increasing the capacity of these facilities to meet changing demands, as existing neighbourhoods densify and as demographics shift over time. However, as LEED-ND standards focus specifically on the proximity of these amenities to new development, Vancouver’s existing facilities are in general well-located to meet LEED-ND requirements in many areas of the city.  Urban Forest Vancouver is well known for its street trees; the majority of Vancouver streets tend to have trees, and the city’s Park Board has an aggressive street tree planting program that occurs every fall, so the city’s urban forest is constantly being replenished and expanded. While not all areas of the city necessarily have streets that are well-planted, much of the city would likely meet the LEED-ND street tree requirements, for at least one point.  There are also aspects of the City of Vancouver that prevent projects from scoring well under LEED-ND, such as:  Length of Blocks Vancouver’s street grid would likely assist LEED-ND projects in achieving certain points, due to the high levels of intersection density that are created. However, aspects of it also hinder the achievement of LEED-ND prerequisites and credits in certain parts of 61  the city, due to the length of some existing blocks. The existing street grid is extremely challenging to make any changes to, so this is a significant hindrance to meeting basic LEED-ND requirements in some parts of the city.  Highly Urbanized While the previously developed nature of Vancouver would assist in achieving certain LEED-ND prerequisites and credits, it also makes it more challenging to achieve others, such as those concerned with the protection, restoration, and long term management of valuable habitat. While it is possible to take action on these matters in areas throughout Vancouver, it is much more challenging and expensive to recreate and restore destroyed habitat in a previously developed urban area, than it is to improve, protect, and manage existing habitat.  Locations of Jobs The City of Vancouver is well-known for its past policy direction encouraging residential development within the downtown peninsula, in order to locate housing close to existing jobs. However, in general, the majority of jobs in Vancouver are located in specific areas of the city (i.e. downtown, Central Broadway, industrial zones, etc) and there are extensive residential areas in the city that have very few jobs. In addition, residential growth in the city is happening far faster than job growth. Therefore, depending on the area in question, it may be challenging for Vancouver LEED-ND projects to meet the rating system’s requirements for jobs-to-housing proximity.  Developed Slopes There is existing development on steep slopes throughout Vancouver, and this is unlikely to be minimized in the future, due to the high demand for developable land within the city.  Transit Facilities Transit stops in Vancouver don’t typically have the various amenities required to achieve points under LEED-ND, and there is limited funding available from Translink and the 62  City to add these amenities to the many transit stops throughout the city where they are currently lacking.  Farmers’ Markets and Community Gardens Vancouver has many community gardens and farmers’ markets, but much of the city is not within the walking distance to a market required, nor have the quantity of community garden space required, to achieve points under LEED-ND.  63  6 - RECOMMENDATIONS  i. For Central Broadway  The objective for the Central Broadway LEED-ND assessment was to provide recommendations to inform the planning process, in order to improve both the neighbourhood’s and the City’s performance in terms of LEED-ND criteria. These recommendations also support the City’s Greenest City 2020 objectives, as LEED-ND and the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan cover similar topics (City of Vancouver, 2012e).  City of Vancouver planning staff reviewed the LEED-ND assessment for Central Broadway’s existing conditions, and this informed the development of the Draft C-3A Central Broadway Design Guidelines (Draft Guidelines). A second LEED-ND assessment was then conducted for Central Broadway, with the anticipated future impact of the Draft Guidelines taken into consideration. The following recommendations describe how these Draft Guidelines and other City policy and by-laws could better address the criteria of LEED-ND in Central Broadway. They focus in particular on criteria that are not currently likely to be achieved, even when the new policy contained within Draft Guidelines is taken into consideration.  Many of these recommendations significantly exceed current practice, in terms of what they are asking of private development. If these recommendations are not feasible at the current time, they could be considered for future iterations of guidelines, policy, and by- laws addressing Central Broadway.  Alternatively, these recommendations could be proposed first for rezoning projects in Vancouver, before being applied more widely, e.g. for all projects seeking conditional FSR allowances in Central Broadway.  These recommendations apply only to the Neighbourhood Pattern and Design, and Green Infrastructure and Buildings sections. This is because the credits that Central Broadway was not likely to achieve in the Smart Location and Linkage section are based on existing 64  site characteristics that are more challenging to change significantly (such as removing development from slopes with a greater than 15% grade).  Neighbourhood Pattern and Design  Variety of Dwelling Unit Types; Family-Sized Dwelling Units The design guidelines for Central Broadway should encourage the provision of a variety of dwelling unit sizes and types in multi-unit residential buildings, in particular “family- sized” units (e.g. larger, multi-bedroom units). The Draft Guidelines state an intent of providing “a pleasant, healthy and safe environment both in the work place and at home that supports and promotes family and community” (City of Vancouver, 2012c, p.2), but do not specifically address the provision of family-sized dwelling units. This topic is covered in LEED-ND under “Mixed-Income Diverse Communities” (NPDc4). Part of this credit pertains to the provision of non-market housing, which the City of Vancouver may not wish to specifically address within the context of the planning program for Central Broadway. In addition, the provision of non-market housing is likely not best addressed within design guidelines, which were the focus of this assessment. However, the second component of this credit pertains to the diversity of dwelling unit types. LEED-ND provides a menu of twenty different dwelling unit types to choose from, with a greater variety of unit types achieving a greater number of points. The reasoning behind awarding points for a diversity of unit types is that this will increase housing accessibility to a variety of income levels, and to a variety of types of occupants, including families. Certain unit types, such as detached residential, would not be desirable within Central Broadway. However, many of the unit types listed within this LEED-ND credit are applicable to the Central Broadway context; for example, there are twelve unit types that apply to multi-unit residential buildings. The City should identify dwelling unit types that are lacking in Central Broadway and that they would like to encourage, such as family- sized units. The design guidelines should then direct projects (which have a residential component) to incorporate the dwelling unit types that have been prioritized by the City. This will increase the diversity of unit types in the neighbourhood and, as a result, improve the neighbourhood’s “Mixed-Income Diverse Communities” (NPDc4) score. 65   Amenities for Transit Stops The design guidelines for Central Broadway should encourage developers to provide amenities for transit stops adjacent to their development project. LEED-ND has fairly rigorous requirements under “Transit Facilities” (NPDc7) for the provision of amenities at transit stops, including shelters that are covered and partially enclosed, with seating, illumination, transit schedules/route information, and bike racks. This topic is not currently addressed within Central Broadway’s Draft Guidelines. The City should select certain transit stop amenities, such as bike racks, which could be provided by developers at a relatively low additional cost, and specify in the design guidelines that these should be provided by projects seeking conditional FSR allowances within Central Broadway.  Parks and Significant Public Spaces More parks and significant public spaces should be considered for the portion of Central Broadway between Burrard and Granville streets. The LEED-ND “Access to Civic and Public Space” credit (NPDc9) requires buildings to be within a 400 metre (¼ mile) walk of a “civic or passive-use space” (e.g. square, park, or plaza).  The majority of buildings in the area between Burrard and Granville streets are not within a 400 metre (¼ mile) walk of a public park or gathering space. However, Central Broadway technically meets the requirements of this credit because the community gardens along the 6th Avenue railroad tracks (between Maple and Fir) and the green space outside the Vancouver School Board building (at Fir Street and 10th Avenue) both qualify as a “civic or passive- use space,” according to the LEED-ND definition. While the LEED-ND criteria have been met for this credit, these two sites (the area adjacent to railroad tracks and the Vancouver School Board site) are not owned by the City of Vancouver, so they have a lower degree of permanence than conventional City-owned parks and public spaces. This deficiency of conventional City parks and public spaces in the area between Burrard and Granville may warrant closer study by the City. If the deficiency is deemed a priority, small parks or other public spaces could be sought from rezoning projects occurring in the area.  66  Accessibility: Dwelling Units and Public Right-of-Ways Accessibility should be addressed within the planning program for Central Broadway. The Central Broadway area does not currently meet the requirements of “Visitability and Universal Design” (NPDc11), and this topic is not addressed within the Draft Guidelines. While the City of Vancouver does have “Accessible Street Design” guidelines, these are not as rigorous as this credit’s referenced standard (the ADA-ABA Accessibility Guidelines), and current conditions in Central Broadway do not meet the criteria of this credit. Accessibility within the Central Broadway corridor is of particular importance given the central location of this planning area within the City of Vancouver, the high amount of public transit in this corridor, as well as the focus of health facilities and services within and adjacent to this area, such as near Vancouver General Hospital. If it is not feasible to implement accessibility improvements throughout Central Broadway, the City should consider focusing improvements within a precinct around Vancouver General Hospital, due to the high level of health services available in this area. Improvements should address both public right-of-ways (streets, sidewalks, public spaces) and dwelling units. In terms of public right-of-ways, locations that do not meet the required standard should be identified and specific improvements planned. For dwelling units, guidelines should be developed directing projects to include a proportion of dwelling units (LEED- ND specifies 20%) that incorporate universal design strategies, such as those specified in the “Visitability and Universal Design” credit (see Appendix D. Universal Design Strategies from LEED-ND for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings). Such guidelines could be applied to a specific precinct within the vicinity of Vancouver General Hospital.  Green Infrastructure and Buildings  LEED Certification of Buildings The City should consider applying the LEED registration and certification components of its Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings to all projects in Central Broadway seeking conditional FSR allowances. The Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings currently requires rezoning projects to demonstrate at all three stages of permitting that they are on track to achieve 63 LEED points. This policy also requires rezoning projects to register 67  and apply for LEED-NC certification, in order to obtain third party verification through the Canada Green Building Council (City of Vancouver, 2010d). The benefit of the requirement for third party verification is that it adds significant rigor to a green building policy; if developers and builders know that their work will be reviewed and assessed by an impartial third party, they will likely be more concerned with ensuring that their project successfully addresses the green building criteria that they have indicated it will address. This increased awareness and oversight is subsequently likely to result in improved actual performance (e.g. in energy efficiency, water-use efficiency, etc) by the buildings that are required to adhere to this policy. Applying the LEED registration and certification components of the Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings to all buildings in Central Broadway seeking conditional FSR allowances would assist the area in achieving more points under “Certified Green Buildings” (GIBc1). As indicated in the Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings and in the LEED-ND “Certified Green Buildings” credit, it would also be appropriate to adhere to other green building rating system programs (i.e. other than LEED), if equivalent or greater performance and rigor can be demonstrated.  Building Energy Efficiency The City should consider applying the energy efficiency requirements of its Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings to all projects in Central Broadway seeking conditional FSR allowances. The City’s Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings specifies that a minimum of six optimize energy performance points be achieved under LEED-NC by rezoning projects (City of Vancouver, 2010d). Four optimize energy performance points under LEED-NC (i.e. LEED-NC Energy and Atmosphere credit 1) are equivalent to one point under the “Building Energy Efficiency” credit from LEED-ND (GIBc2), for buildings four stories and above.  Requiring four optimize energy performance points under LEED-NC for all projects in Central Broadway seeking conditional FSR allowances would assist Central Broadway in achieving the related LEED-ND credit (GIBc2).  This requirement could be increased over time to six optimize energy points, to bring the policy into alignment with the energy performance requirements of the Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings.  68  Building Water Efficiency and Stormwater Management The City should consider applying the water efficiency and stormwater management requirements of its Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings to all projects in Central Broadway seeking conditional FSR allowances. The City’s Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings specifies that a minimum of one water efficiency point and one storm water point in LEED-NC be achieved by rezoning projects. This would not be sufficient to improve Central Broadway’s overall LEED-ND score, as LEED-ND standards for “Building Water Efficiency” (GIBc3) and “Stormwater Management” (GIBc8) are much more stringent (e.g. a building would have to achieve four points under LEED-NC to achieve one point under GIBc3). Nonetheless, requiring one water efficiency point under LEED-NC for Central Broadway projects would still have a valuable environmental impact. For example, to achieve this point projects would need to include measures such as low-flow faucets and low-flush toilets which are more efficient than what is currently required by the Vancouver Building By-law. This could also be an intermediary step towards greater water efficiency requirements for Central Broadway and throughout the City. In terms of stormwater management, LEED-ND’s “Stormwater Management” credit (GIBc8) would be challenging to achieve in Central Broadway, given Vancouver’s rainfall patterns and the lack of landscaping space within the highly urbanized Central Broadway area (Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Limited, 2009).  The City should first consider applying the Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings requirement of one LEED- NC stormwater point (i.e. LEED-NC “Sustainable Sites” credit 6.1) to Central Broadway projects seeking conditional FSR approval. Over the long term, the City should consider strategies and look for opportunities for implementing block-level or neighbourhood- scale rainwater catchment areas, as these are another approach which can help to achieve the LEED-ND stormwater management credit (GIBc8).  Water Efficient Landscaping The City should require a 50% reduction in water use (from a calculated midsummer baseline case) for irrigation for all projects seeking conditional FSR approvals in Central Broadway. The City of Vancouver has very few requirements regarding the water efficiency of landscaping, and the Draft Guidelines do not include requirements, although 69  they do state that “Applicants are encouraged to incorporate water infiltration and retention features, such as green roofs on concrete frame buildings, and natural rainwater management approaches such as permeable surfaces, swales, and water detention zones” (p.9). However, according to the City’s Water Wise Landscape Guidelines (City of Vancouver, 2009b, p.2): “The City’s Green Buildings Strategy set out a goal of 50% reduction in water use for irrigation in new developments over 2008 levels.” This goal aligns well with LEED-ND “Water-Efficient Landscaping” credit (GIBc4), which requires that outdoor landscape irrigation be reduced by 50%, from a calculated midsummer baseline case. The City currently has such a requirement in place in the Southeast False Creek area, which has been met and exceeded by building projects in the area through a combination of applying a rainwater balance model, and native and drought-tolerant plantings (Ramslie, 2011). Southeast False Creek’s water-efficient landscaping policies, described in the Southeast False Creek Green Building Strategy and the Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan By-law, could be applied to projects seeking conditional FSR approvals in Central Broadway (City of Vancouver, 2008; City of Vancouver, 2007). Although Central Broadway projects may have limited landscaped areas, this measure would have significant environmental value and could be an intermediary step towards applying this policy more broadly in Vancouver. Requiring water-wise landscaping may also help developers reduce costs, if they can avoid installing expensive irrigation systems as a result.  On-Site Renewable Energy Sources The City should consider requiring a small amount of on-site renewable energy generation. This could be applied first to rezoning projects throughout the city, and then to projects seeking conditional FSR approvals in Central Broadway. For example, requiring that projects generate 1% of their annual energy needs would achieve one point under LEED-NC (Energy and Atmosphere credit 2 “On-Site Renewable Energy”); 5% would garner three points under LEED-NC and one point under LEED-ND (GIBc11 “On-site Renewable Energy Sources”). Alternatively, the City could require only a very low amount, e.g. 0.01%. While such a threshold would be substantially lower than LEED standards, it would still serve the purpose of requiring developers to implement a 70  renewable energy system (however small), which has educational value, while also acting as a first step in transitioning towards more stringent requirements. As an example, a fairly typical, six-storey, mixed-use (first-floor retail, second-floor office, remainder residential) building, with natural gas-powered space heating and hot water heating, might have in the range of 500,000kWh/yr of regulated electricity use (i.e. excluding plug loads). A rooftop installation of 45m2 of photovoltaic panels, at a cost of approximately $24,000, would be expected to produce about 5000kWh/yr, or approximately 0.01% of the building’s regulated electricity use. An even greater proportion of renewable energy could be generated within the same rooftop area using a hybrid photovoltaic-thermal system. Finally, if requiring a percentage of on-site renewable energy production was not deemed feasible at this time, the City could instead require that buildings be designed to be easily retrofitted for rooftop renewable energy generation (e.g. for photovoltaics, hybrid solar-thermal systems, etc).  ii. For the City of Vancouver  While some of the recommendations specified for Central Broadway are best suited to this particular neighbourhood and development context, many could also apply to the City of Vancouver as a whole. Some, in fact, may be more appropriately applied city- wide, particularly when the subject matter is typically dealt with at a city-wide scale and systems are in place to support implementation. Applying new policy and by-laws city- wide also has the advantage of addressing issues that affect all of the city’s neighbourhoods collectively, rather than neighbourhood by neighbourhood.  The following recommendations would assist Central Broadway in meeting LEED-ND criteria, but would likely best be considered at the city-wide scale, due to their content and the manner in which these topics are currently dealt with by the City of Vancouver.  Habitat Mapping The City of Vancouver should undertake mapping and assessment of existing and potential habitat areas within City boundaries. It would be useful to know the extent and condition of existing habitat fragments within city boundaries, both for LEED-ND 71  assessment purposes and for broader goals related to the protection and management of endangered species and ecological habitats. Habitat assessments could determine whether there is potential habitat for any endangered species and how habitat areas identified could best be protected, managed, enhanced and potentially connected, over the long term, to maximize their ecological value. For LEED-ND assessment purposes, it would be most valuable to give consideration to species and ecological communities listed under provincial or federal legislation (Species at Risk Act - SARA), or ranked by NatureServe as GH-G2, that have been found or are likely to be found (because of suitable habitat) within or near city boundaries. In terms of achieving LEED-ND credits concerned with the protection, restoration, and long term management of such habitat, additional planning would need to be undertaken to determine how limited resources could best be applied, and specific restoration and management projects would need to be identified and undertaken.  Brownfield Mapping To encourage redevelopment of brownfield sites, the City should map brownfield sites throughout Vancouver and examine whether particular sites have factors that could significantly impede redevelopment. The City should identify high priority redevelopment sites, based on criteria of their choosing, and determine whether there are actions the City could take to incentivize the remediation and redevelopment of these sites (e.g. allocating increased density, expedited permitting, etc).  LEED-ND offers an additional point under the “Brownfields Redevelopment” credit (SLLc2) for the redevelopment of high priority brownfields, but as these have not been identified with the City of Vancouver, this point is not available to projects within the city. Identifying high priority brownfield sites and providing incentives for their redevelopment would assist Vancouver LEED-ND projects in achieving points under this credit, while also encouraging brownfield redevelopment in the city.  Bicycle Parking and End-of-trip Facilities The City should review the Parking By-law in conjunction with LEED-ND credits to identify incongruities and bring by-law requirements into alignment with LEED-ND. 72  This could be done as part of ongoing updates to the by-law regarding secure bicycle parking and other end-of-trip facilities. In general, the Parking By-law requires similar amounts of bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities to LEED-ND. However, the approach LEED-ND employs to determine the quantities of bicycle parking and end-of- trip facilities required differs from the Parking By-law. This makes it difficult to compare the two, and it also means that the Parking By-law requirements are would not necessarily meet LEED-ND standards, depending on the building size and type. For example, LEED-ND requires all multi-unit residential buildings to provide “at least one secure, enclosed bicycle storage space per occupant for 30% of the planned occupancy but no fewer than one per unit,” as well as “secure visitor bicycle racks on-site, with at least one bicycle space per ten dwelling units but no fewer than four spaces per project site” (U.S. Green Building Council, 2011a, p.29). The Parking By-law requires most multi-unit residential buildings to provide a minimum of 1.25 “Class A” spaces for every dwelling unit, and a minimum of six “Class B” spaces for any development containing a minimum of twenty dwelling units. The City’s “Class B” parking spaces are similar to LEED-ND’s “visitor spaces,” and in general the required amounts of the two types of bicycle spaces are similar. However, the Parking By-law requirements are relaxed for certain buildings types, for example multi-unit residential buildings with dwelling units smaller 37 square metres, which are only required to provide a minimum of 0.25 spaces for every dwelling unit. For certain building sizes and types, the City’s Parking By-law requirements would exceed LEED-ND standards, while for others they would not meet LEED-ND requirements. LEED-ND requirements should be considered when the City updates the by-law’s bicycle parking and end-of-trip facility requirements. This would help ensure LEED-ND projects in the city achieve the “Bike Network and Storage” (SLLc4) and “Reduced Parking Footprint” (NPDc5) credits.  Shared Vehicle Parking Requirement The City should also revise the Parking By-law to include carpool and/or shared vehicle parking space requirements for commercial and mixed-use buildings within Central Broadway, and potentially in other parts of the city. In terms of LEED-ND requirements, several aspects of “Reduced Parking Footprint” (NPDc5) are covered by the Parking By- 73  law, other City policy, and/or by the Draft Guidelines for Central Broadway. However, the requirements for carpool and shared vehicle parking spaces are not covered. The City’s Parking By-law (Section 3.2.2) incentivizes the provision of shared vehicle parking spots by reducing the required number of parking spots if shared spots are provided. However, the provision of shared vehicle parking spots is not currently required. As a result, Central Broadway would not be expected to achieve “Reduced Parking Footprint” (NPDc5) because of this credit’s criteria for these types of parking spaces. The Parking By-law should specify that the provision of shared vehicle parking spots is required in Central Broadway, in place of regular parking spots, for all commercial and mixed-use buildings. Residential buildings are not included in this recommendation, as the provision and management of shared vehicle parking spots can be more challenging in buildings without publically accessible parking areas. The Parking By-law could specify that shared vehicle parking spots must constitute a minimum proportion of total parking, e.g. LEED-ND requires shared vehicle spots constitute 10% of total parking. The existing Parking By-law incentive of a reduction in required parking spots, when shared vehicle parking spots are provided, could be maintained or increased (i.e. fewer regular parking spots required); the key difference would be that all commercial and mixed-use buildings would be required to include shared vehicle parking spots. In conjunction with a Parking By-law review, the City should also consider increasing the amount of on-street designated shared vehicle parking spaces within the Central Broadway corridor, to further encourage the use of car-sharing services in this area.  Unbundling of Parking A third suggested revision to the Parking By-law is a requirement for unbundling of parking within Central Broadway, and potentially in other parts of the city. For LEED- ND projects, one approach for achieving a point under “Transportation Demand Management” (NPDc8) is through unbundling of parking. Central Broadway’s Draft Guidelines do not address unbundling of parking, but this could be required through the City’s Parking By-law for all new multi-unit residential, non-residential, or mixed-use projects in the area. The Parking By-law could specify that, for a certain proportion of 74  residential and non-residential square footage (LEED-ND requires 90%), parking spaces be sold or rented separately from the dwelling units and/or non-residential square footage. This would enable LEED-ND projects in Central Broadway to meet LEED-ND’s “Transportation Demand Management” (NPDc8) requirements, while discouraging car ownership and increasing affordability for owners and tenants that do not require parking.  Management of Urban Forest and Invasive Species The City should review its “Preferred Street Tree Species List” in its Street Tree Guidelines for the Public Realm and remove any species currently on the list that are considered invasive in southern coastal BC (City of Vancouver, 2011d). The City should also list key invasive plants of concern locally. The City should also consider requiring, as part of the rezoning or development permit process, the removal of invasive plants that are impacting existing trees (e.g. English ivy), while encouraging the removal of other invasive species. The City’s Protection of Trees By-law currently allows the removal of mature trees that are within the path of the building envelop or drainage system of a development project (City of Vancouver, 2010e). The City should consider implementing more rigorous permit requirements for the removal of very large, mature trees (e.g. with a trunk diameter of greater than 50cm) to ensure that every effort is made to design new development such that the city’s largest trees are retained wherever possible.  Building Energy Efficiency The City should implement proposed (2012) energy efficiency revisions to the Vancouver Building By-law, and consider additional revisions for remaining Part Nine building types that the currently proposed revisions do not address. Under the Vancouver Building By- law, residential buildings less than four-storeys high and 600 m2 are considered “Part Nine” buildings. Larger, more complex buildings and small non-residential buildings are considered "Part Three” buildings. Currently in Vancouver, all Part Three buildings are required to comply with the 2007 version of the ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (City of Vancouver, 2011a). The City has proposed a by-law amendment that would update the version referenced to ASHRAE 90.1-2010. This proposed amendment is considered roughly equivalent to a 15% 75  improvement in the level of energy efficiency required (City of Vancouver, 2012f; BTY Group, 2012). This will assist new Part Three buildings in Vancouver in meeting the requirements of the LEED-ND “Building Energy Efficiency” (GIBp2) prerequisite, which requires at least a 10% improvement over ASHRAE 90.1-2007. The City’s Green Homes program applies to all new one- and two-family homes, and in recent years has included amendments to the Vancouver Building By-law which seek to bring new home construction up to EnerGuide 80. This will assist one- and two- family homes in meeting the requirements of the “Building Energy Efficiency” (GIBp2) prerequisite. While these two revisions to the Vancouver Building By-law take significant strides towards improving energy efficiency in Vancouver buildings, certain building types remain unaddressed, i.e. multi-unit residential buildings three-stories or less, or under 600m2 in building floor area. The City of Vancouver should increase building energy efficiency requirements for these remaining Part Nine buildings sufficiently to meet the “Building Energy Efficiency” prerequisite (GIBp2) criteria in LEED-ND.  Building Water Efficiency The Vancouver Building By-law should be amended to require low-flow fixtures for commercial, mixed-use, and multi-unit residential buildings, with a target of achieving a 20% building water efficiency improvement over baseline levels. The majority of new buildings constructed within the Central Broadway area are anticipated to follow the Draft Guidelines, which direct new building projects to perform “at a LEED NCTM equivalent level of Gold or Platinum” (p.9), thus requiring minimum building water efficiencies sufficient to meet the LEED-ND “Building Water Efficiency” prerequisite (GIBp3).  However, outside of Central Broadway, only projects seeking a rezoning would be required to achieve LEED-level building water efficiencies. Other buildings would simply be required to follow the Vancouver Building By-Law’s water efficiency requirements that are only marginally better than the baseline water use specified under LEED. However, the City has recently increased water efficiency requirements for one- and two-family homes and is currently considering adding requirements for low-flow fixtures in commercial and high-rise residential buildings (Ramslie, 2011). Such amendments to the Vancouver Building By-law should be implemented targeting a 20% 76  building water efficiency improvement over baseline levels for Part Three buildings, with further amendments implemented over time applying to Part Nine buildings.  Solid Waste Management Infrastructure The City should apply the following direction from the Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan By-law to rezoning projects throughout Vancouver: “Each CD-1 re- zoning is to include requirements regarding the separation, collection, and storage of garbage, organics, and recyclable materials; on-site organic composting for landscaping needs; and the management of construction and demolition waste to ensure a minimum of 50% landfill diversion” (City of Vancouver, 2007, p.15). The City should consider applying this policy to buildings in Central Broadway seeking conditional FSR allowances. The City also has a Solid Waste Storage Facility Design Supplement for Developments and Redevelopments which provides guidance on facilities for recycling storage/separation (City of Vancouver, 2010f). These guidelines are currently required for most rezoning projects, but could also be added to the design guidelines for Central Broadway, as a further step towards city-wide implementation. The City could also set a long term objective of placing recycling containers in public locations (sidewalk area) every 240 metres (800 feet) along mixed-use and non-residential blocks in Central Broadway. All of the above would assist Central Broadway in achieving the LEED-ND “Solid Waste Management Infrastructure ” credit (GIBc16).  Recycled Content in Infrastructure The City should determine a threshold for minimum recycled content for new transportation infrastructure built by the City and apply this requirement to public infrastructure constructed as part of rezoning projects. The LEED-ND credit “Recycled Content in Infrastructure” (GIBc15) has relatively stringent requirements, with a threshold of 50% recycled content for all new infrastructure. New roads built by the City do not currently meet this threshold; the City typically uses a mix containing 20% recycled content for new roads, particularly for new arterials (Desrochers, 2011).  If the “Recycled Content in Infrastructure” (GIBc15) threshold of 50% is too difficult to meet, the City should select a lower threshold (e.g. 20%) that would be feasible to apply to all 77  new transportation infrastructure built by the City, such as for roads, sidewalks, and parking lots, as well as base and sub-base materials. This same threshold should also be applied to rezoning projects, for the portions of public infrastructure built by the private developer. The City could also consider applying this requirement to projects seeking conditional FSR approvals in Central Broadway. Over time, if techniques to incorporate higher percentages of recycled content into infrastructure become available to the City, this threshold could be raised.  iii. For Other Local Governments  Many characteristics of Vancouver, common throughout the city or supported by City policy and by-laws, contribute to the performance of this city’s neighbourhoods in relation to LEED-ND requirements; many points would likely be achieved based on factors that are not specific or unique to a particular neighbourhood, but rather features of the City of Vancouver as a whole, its historic development patterns, and its location at the well-developed core of a large urban region. This is important to keep in mind when reflecting on the application and relevance of LEED-ND in other, perhaps more suburban or rural, contexts.  At the same time, while certain characteristics of the City of Vancouver would assist LEED-ND projects within City boundaries in achieving points, some of these same characteristics would impede projects from achieving other points. For example, while the previously developed nature of Vancouver contributes to the achievement of some points under LEED-ND, it also likely hinders the achievement of points related to the protection and management of habitat, or the size and orientation of city blocks. It is a common feature of LEED rating systems that certain points are applicable to certain types of projects, and not all points are applicable to all projects.  Depending on the municipality, certain LEED-ND criteria may be more readily achieved than others, and certain topics in the rating system may be of greater local priority than others. However, in general, the rating system offers a relatively comprehensive set of topics, criteria, and metrics for municipalities to review as a whole, compare to their 78  existing development conditions, policy, and by-laws, and consider in relation to their local priorities.  iv. For Revising LEED-ND for Assessing Existing Neighbourhoods and Their Plans  A challenging component of undertaking this LEED-ND assessment was determining how to apply the rating system towards assessing existing neighbourhoods with only low levels of new development, when this was not what the rating system was designed to assess. Though challenging, the LEED-ND rating system was still a useful tool for assessing the Norquay and Central Broadway neighbourhoods and their new plan and draft design guidelines, respectively. However, the process highlighted aspects of the rating system that could be changed to make it a more appropriate tool for this type of application.  When assessing existing neighbourhoods and their plans, it makes sense to distinguish between existing, built infrastructure and amenities, and features that are specified in a plan. Revising the LEED-ND rating system to differentiate between criteria for plans versus actual built developments provides clarity in terms of what is actually being assessed. This is a revision to the LEED-ND rating system that has already been proposed by the USGBC, and which will likely be applied with the launch of the next version of the rating system, LEED-ND 2012.  The rating system for plans will be called “LEED-ND Plan,” while the rating system for built developments will remain as “LEED- ND.”  In terms of employing LEED-ND to assess existing neighbourhoods, this is also a useful distinction. While the USGBC has not included criteria for existing neighbourhoods within LEED-ND 2012, this distinction between LEED-ND Plan and LEED-ND could be elaborated on for this purpose, perhaps creating a designation for “LEED for Existing Neighbourhoods” (“LEED-EN”) and “LEED for Existing Neighbourhood Plans” (“LEED-EN Plan”). This would enable criteria to be specified for existing 79  neighbourhoods and municipal plans which are different than those for new development, and enable criteria to have appropriate rigour for the context in which they are being applied.  Under this scenario, a prerequisite such as “Floodplain Avoidance” (SLLp5) might be reworked for a “LEED-EN Plan” application such that any neighbourhood currently on a floodplain would, for example, be required to develop an adaptation and mitigation strategy responding to increased flooding risk associated with climate change. This would address the content of this prerequisite, while acknowledging that a neighbourhood which is already built should be assessed differently than new development.  For an assessment of just the existing neighbourhood itself, and not a neighbourhood plan, it might make sense to remove prerequisites altogether, and simply have points associated with the criteria currently included in the LEED-ND prerequisites. This would mean that neighbourhoods that don’t meet certain prerequisites could still obtain a meaningful assessment score, without having to “ignore” the fact that they simply cannot achieve certain prerequisites. Though they may not be possible to change, locational characteristics such as those identified in the Smart Location and Linkage prerequisites could still be included in the rating system, but associated with points instead, so that they could still be employed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the locations and characteristics of existing neighbourhoods. For example, in terms of the “Floodplain Avoidance” (SLLp5) prerequisite, points could be associated with specific features (already be in place) which were designed to mitigate flooding risk and adapt to sea level rise.  In general, many of the criteria for assessing existing neighbourhoods would need to have lower thresholds, in order for the points to be more realistically achievable. For example, for “Street Network” (NPDc6), the current criteria of a through-street every 400 feet at the project boundary may be met by some existing neighbourhoods but, if it isn’t met outright, it is extremely difficult to retrofit existing, developed blocks to create more through-streets and reduce block length. Potential “LEED-EN Plan” criteria could instead 80  link the achievement of points to additional features such as adding mid-block crossings, and to retrofitting a small proportion of existing non-compliant blocks, rather than simply the current requirement of retrofitting all existing non-compliant blocks.  In order for a “LEED for Existing Neighbourhoods” rating system to have the most value, it might make sense to increase the number of points available, and the number of point thresholds within specific credits. This would allow this type of rating system to be more responsive to the greater variety of existing neighbourhoods, and their individual challenges and priorities. A range of points that is somewhat accessible, and not so far out of reach that points are entirely unrealistic to achieve, would make a LEED-ND assessment more useful in that it would indicate to a municipality steps that could be taken to improve the performance of that neighbourhood over time. Whereas, having one point available for reaching a threshold that is not realistically achievable by a particular neighbourhood would simply indicate that neighbourhood is simply too far behind to be guided by the rating system in a meaningful way.  As an example, it would be extremely difficult for existing neighbourhoods which have numerous blocks longer than the maximum required by the “Street Network” (NPDc6) criteria to achieve this credit, or to even create plans for achieving this credit, unless these plans were for the very long term (e.g. 50-100 year plans). However, a series of point thresholds could be developed whereby points could be achieved for even small increases in connectivity. For example, for even just a few new through-streets could correlate to achieving points, as each new through-street created represents a significant investment of resources on the part of the municipality.  New versions of the LEED-ND rating system for assessing existing neighbourhoods (“LEED-EN”) and municipal plans for existing neighbourhoods (“LEED-EN Plan”) could retain the same general content and scope as the current LEED-ND rating system. Each prerequisite and credit would need to be considered from these two different perspectives (assessing and planning for an existing neighbourhood), but many of the credit requirements and metrics could remain the same, or very similar, as the majority 81  have proven to be applicable to the Norquay and Central Broadway contexts. The first key consideration would be to reframe each requirement given the assumption that development will only be occurring incrementally over time, and adjust the thresholds of the requirements accordingly.  The second key consideration would be how the various credits and prerequisites could be adjusted (ideally, as minimally as possible) to make them more useful as guides for long term neighbourhood planning and improvement. Removing the concept of prerequisites, in order to allow all existing neighbourhoods to participate, and introducing more point thresholds, to increase the responsiveness of the rating system to a wide variety of neighbourhood contexts, are two ways that the LEED-ND rating system could be adapted to make it more inclusive of many different types existing neighbourhoods, and therefore more broadly applicable as a tool for municipal planners. While these two features - no prerequisites and a greater number of points - would constitute a substantial divergence from the current LEED rating systems (which all have prerequisites and employ the same points structure), they would allow LEED-ND to be better applied as a tool to address a very complex undertaking: the assessment and benchmarking of the vast array of existing neighbourhoods.  82  7 – CONCLUSION  When assessed according to LEED-ND criteria, neither Norquay nor Central Broadway would be expected to achieve all LEED-ND prerequisites, meaning that neither could be expected to certify as LEED-ND projects. Nonetheless, if the unachievable prerequisites are ignored, both neighbourhoods perform quite well in terms of LEED-ND criteria, particularly when their new policy documents (Norquay Plan and Draft Guidelines for Norquay and Central Broadway, respectively) are taken into account.  Norquay would be expected to increase from approximately 32 points (not certified) to 56 points (LEED-ND “Silver”), and Central Broadway would be expected to increase from 46 points (LEED- ND “Certified”) to 59 points (LEED-ND “Silver,” and only one point short of “Gold”).  Both lead planners for Norquay and Central Broadway planning areas found this LEED- ND assessment to be a valuable undertaking. For these two planning programs, it was an opportunity to assess more deeply both existing neighbourhood characteristics, as well as the potential impacts of new policy directions. For Central Broadway, this assessment was also useful in that it served to inform the development of the new Draft Guidelines. Both planners would recommend the use of the LEED-ND rating system in this fashion (neighbourhood assessments and policy gap analyses) to other local government planners.  The City of Vancouver has many characteristics that are common throughout the city which would both contribute to and potentially detract from the achievement of LEED- ND certification by projects within its boundaries; these were highlighted in this report. In general, the City of Vancouver has many city-wide features that align well with LEED-ND, and it would typically be a good location in which to undertake a LEED-ND project. This report includes additional recommendations that would assist both Central Broadway and the City of Vancouver as a whole in meeting a greater amount of LEED- ND requirements. Perhaps the biggest gains could be made in terms of addressing LEED- ND’s Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria, many of which are likely best addressed on a city-wide scale. These criteria mirror and support many goals contained 83  within the City’s Greenest City 2020 Action Plan, and provide a practical measuring stick for assessing the City’s performance in implementing green buildings and infrastructure throughout Vancouver’s neighbourhoods (City of Vancouver, 2012e).  The City of Vancouver has a well-established reputation as a “green city,” which is derived not only from current City branding, programs, and policy, but also from long- standing policy and programs, the city’s history, and various physical and environmental characteristics of the city and its context. According to the locational requirements of LEED-ND, Vancouver is, in general, an excellent place to develop. While this may not be a key discussion piece for the City’s neighbourhood planning processes, it is still a point that the City may want to emphasize, noting how well Vancouver’s existing neighbourhoods score according to LEED-ND’s Smart Location and Linkage criteria. According to LEED-ND, the majority of Vancouver is a “Smart Growth” location; this is arguably the most important feature of a “green city” and should continue to be celebrated.  This assessment project applied LEED-ND in a less rigorous fashion than which it is typically applied, such as by the GBCI for the purpose of formally reviewing LEED-ND project certifications. This was necessary, as the LEED-ND rating system is not currently designed for assessing existing neighbourhoods and municipal plans (apart from plans for a specific new development or major redevelopment project). In many ways, LEED-ND is a rating system that is very specific in its requirements, and rigid in its application. There is a broad spectrum of topics covered and numerous different credits available, but each may only be readily applicable to specific types of development projects. This could be viewed as a detraction from the use of LEED-ND as a tool to guide and assess municipal planning and policy-making, but the specificity of LEED-ND may actually be its greatest strength. This is because, while there are many resources available to provide general guidance on municipal planning and policy, there are few that provide the specificity of metrics found in LEED-ND, and which have undertaken an in-depth points weighting analysis.  84  Although LEED-ND, as it is currently written, is not directly applicable to the assessment of municipal plans for existing neighbourhoods, its specificity can guide local government planners in writing detailed policy, and its points weightings can assist in assessing the value of different policy initiatives and in prioritizing initiatives based on their anticipated environmental and social impacts. As a whole, LEED-ND is considered an international benchmark for sustainable communities, and as such provides a useful reference point for local government plans. A revised version of the rating system, designed specifically for existing neighbourhoods and their plans, as described in this report, would allow LEED-ND to become a more useful tool for local government planners.  85  8 – WORKS CITED  Canada Green Building Council. (2011, December). Neighbourhood Development. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from Canada Green Building Council: http://www.cagbc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Programs/LEED/RatingSystems/Neighb ourhooddevelopments/default.htm  Cheng, P. (2012, March 6). Planner, City of Vancouver. (C. Joseph, Interviewer)  City of Vancouver. (1995, June 6). CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cityplan/dfvf.htm  City of Vancouver. (2006, December 5). Metropolitan Core Jobs & Economy Land Use Plan. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/corejobs/pdf/research/step2employmentspace.pd f  City of Vancouver. (2007, April). Southeast False Creek: Official Development Plan By- law. Retrieved March 24, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/bylaws/odp/SEFC.pdf  City of Vancouver. (2008, July 22). Southeast False Creek Green Building Strategy. Retrieved March 24, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/S012.pdf  City of Vancouver. (2009a, January 20). Urban Agriculture Guidelines for the Private Realm. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/U002.pdf  City of Vancouver. (2009b, July 21). WaterWise Landscape Guidelines. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/sustainability/WaterWiseGuidelines.htm  City of Vancouver. (2010a, November 4). Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Program: Updates and Archives. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/neighcentres/norquay/updates.htm#10nov4counc il  City of Vancouver. (2010b, November). Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/neighcentres/norquay/pdf/NVNCPlan.pdf  86  City of Vancouver. (2010c, May 11). Central Broadway Planning Program: Study Area and Scope. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/centralbroadway/studyareascope.htm  City of Vancouver. (2010d, July 22). Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/Guidelines/G015.pdf  City of Vancouver. (2010e, November). Protection of Trees By-law. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/bylaws/TREE/SEC01.pdf  City of Vancouver. (2010f, August). Solid Waste Storage Facility Design Supplement for Developments and Redevelopments. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/solidwaste/documents/COVStorageFacilityDesignSuppleme ntAug2010.pdf  City of Vancouver. (2011a, November 21). 2007 Vancouver Building By-law. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/CBOFFICIAL/vbbl/index.htm  City of Vancouver. (2011b, February 1). Parking By-law (No. 6059). Retrieved March 16, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/bylaws/parking/parking.htm  City of Vancouver. (2011c, November 23). Accessibility. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/accessibility/#buildings  City of Vancouver. (2011d). Street Tree Guidelines for the Public Realm. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/streets/design/documents/StreetTreeGuidelinesPublicRealm. pdf  City of Vancouver. (2012a, February 13). Greenest City 2020. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/greenestcity/  City of Vancouver. (2012b, March 8). Accessible Street Design. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/streets/design/documents/AccessibleStreetDesign.pdf  City of Vancouver. (2012c). DRAFT C-3A Central Broadway Design Guidelines. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.  City of Vancouver. (2012d). DRAFT Principles and Objectives For Street Trees In Central Broadway. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.  87  City of Vancouver. (2012e). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. Retrieved March 24, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/greenestcity/PDF/GC2020ActionPlan.pdf  City of Vancouver. (2012f, February 27). 2012 Vancouver Building By-law. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/cbofficial/vbbl/2012/round2/environmentalprotection/A13 37.htm  Compass Resource Management Ltd. (2007). A Strategic Energy Analysis for the Proposed Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre; Summary Briefing Note. Vancouver: Compass Resource Management Ltd.  Desrochers, D. (2011, March). Manager, Sewers Design Branch. (C. Joseph, Interviewer)  BTY Group. (2012, January 12). Building Energy Code Update Study. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/cbofficial/vbbl/2012/round2/environmentalprotection/12ja n12EnergyCodeStudy.pdf  ICLEI. (2011, October 26). STAR Community Index. Retrieved March 24, 2012, from ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA: http://www.icleiusa.org/sustainability/star-community-index  Joseph, C., D. Leeming, and D. Stone. (2012). Neighbourhoods Go Green! Ontario Planning Journal, Draft for May/June Issue.  Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Limited. (2009, April). Design Considerations for the Implementation of Green Roofs. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from Metro Vancouver: http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/greenroofreporttext.pdf  Kuhlmann, T. (2012, March 9). Planner, City of Vancouver. (C. Joseph, Interviewer)  Ramslie, D. (2011, March 17). Planner, City of Vancouver. (C. Joseph, Interviewer)  U.S. Green Building Council. (2011a, November). LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development Rating System. Retrieved March 24, 2012, from U.S. Green Building Council: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148  U.S. Green Building Council. (2012b, March). A Local Government Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from U.S. Green Building Council: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6131   88  Appendix A. Norquay LEED-ND Assessment: SLL and NPD Smart Location and Linkage (SLL) and Neighbourhood Pattern and Design (NPD) Assessment for Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre  Notes: NVNC = Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre (existing neighbourhood) NVNC with Redevelopment = NVNC with redevelopment according to existing policies and by-laws NVNC with Plan = NVNC with redevelopment according to NVNC plan  This summary is structured into two components for each prerequisite or credit covered: 1. Key question(s):  This is a simplified overview of the requirements outlined in the prerequisite or credit, worded as a question or a few questions. 2. Assessment: This assessment looks at the NVNC planning area as a LEED-ND project to determine if the neighbourhood would generally meet the requirements of the LEED-ND program.  SMART LOCATION AND LINKAGE (SLL) Note: The five SLL prerequisites and credits SLLc1 and SLLc3 were not assessed in terms of the impacts that redevelopment according to existing policy and/or the NVNC Plan would have, as these prerequisites and credits are achieved based on existing conditions only.  SLLp1 - Smart Location NVNC: Pass  Key questions: Is there existing water and wastewater infrastructure? Is the project site an infill site? (Option 1) Is the project adjacent to and well connected to existing development? (Option 2) Is the site well served by transit? (Option 3) Are there many community amenities located within walking distance? (Option 4)  Assessment: Most of the City of Vancouver would likely qualify as an infill site (Option 1).  NVNC would also likely qualify as an adjacent site with good connectivity (Option 2), as a site well-served by transit (Option 3), and as a site with sufficient community amenities within walking distance (Option 4).  So NVNC would be expected to achieve this prerequisite, with a choice of options by which to do so.  SLLp2 – Imperiled Species and Ecological Communities Conservation NVNC: Pass  Key question: Will the development avoid potential habitat for imperiled species of ecological communities?  Assessment: 89  It is unlikely that there is currently any suitable habitat for endangered species or ecological communities within the NVNC area, so the site would be expected to achieve this prerequisite.  However, has there been any mapping done for the City of Vancouver regarding potential habitat for endangered species or ecological communities?  For LEED-ND purposes and, more importantly, for planning purposes in general, it would be useful to know the extent and condition of existing habitat fragments within City boundaries, whether this includes potential habitat for any endangered species, and how these areas could best be protected, managed, enhanced and potentially connected, over the longterm, to maximize their ecological value.  This LEED-ND prerequisite specifically addresses species and ecological communities listed under provincial or federal legislation (Species at Risk Act - SARA), or ranked by NatureServe as GH-G2, that have been found or are likely to be found (because of suitable habitat) on the project site.  SLLp3 - Wetland and Water Body Conservation NVNC: Pass  Key question: Will the development avoid wetlands and water bodies?  Assessment: NVNC would be expected to achieve this prerequisite, qualifying via Option 1 (Sites with No Wetlands, Water Bodies, Land within 50 Feet of Wetlands, or Land within 100 Feet of Water Bodies).   The site could also qualify via Option 2 (Sites with Wetlands, Water Bodies, Land within 50 Feet of Wetlands, or Land within 100 Feet of Water Bodies) as it is on previously developed land.  SLLp4 - Agricultural Land Conservation NVNC: Pass  Key question: Will the development avoid prime agricultural land?  Assessment: NVNC does not include any prime agricultural land, so it would be expected to achieve this prerequisite.  SLLp5 – Floodplain Avoidance NVNC: Pass  Key question: Will the development avoid floodplains?  Assessment: NVNC would be expected to achieve this prerequisite, as it does not contain any land within the regulatory floodplain. 90   SLLc1 - Preferred Locations NVNC: 11/10  Key questions: Is the project site a previously developed site?  An infill site?  Adjacent to existing development?  Does it have good connectivity?  Assessment: NVNC would be expected to achieve five points (out of five points available) under Option 1 (“Location Type) of this credit, for being an infill site that is also a previously developed site.  NVNC would also be expected to achieve five points (out of five points available) under Option 2 (“Connectivity”) of this credit, as the area has approximately 640 intersections per square mile.  Only 400 intersections per square mile are required to achieve the full five points under Option 2.  600 intersections per square mile allow the project area to qualify for “Exemplary Performance” so, with 640 intersections per square mile, NVNC would also be expected to achieve a point for exemplary performance for this credit.  Note that new intersections identified in the planning program are not included in this calculation – this credit is just for existing intersections.  SLLc2 - Brownfields Redevelopment NVNC: 0/2 NVNC with Redevelopment: 1/2  Key question: Are there any brownfields on the site that will be remediated?  Assessment: Within NVNC there are a few gas stations that could become documented brownfield sites in the near future, and would likely require remediation as part of the redevelopment process. NVNC appears to have potential to achieve one of the two points available for this credit, as redevelopment occurs.  The NVNC Plan doesn’t specifically address brownfield redevelopment but does provide incentive to redevelop these sites by allowing for a significant increase in density, through the proposed changes to the existing zoning along Kingsway. However, it would be beneficial to map potential brownfield sites in the area and examine more closely factors that may impede future redevelopment of these sites. The second point under this credit is for “high priority” brownfield sites; there do not appear to be any high priority brownfield sites in the area at this time.  SLLc3 - Locations with Reduced Automobile Dependence NVNC: 8/7  Key questions: Is the site well-served by transit? Does the area have a per capita VKT that is lower than the average for the region?  91  Assessment: The specific requirements for Option 1 (“Transit-Served Location”) for this credit require 40% of the project’s dwelling units to be within a ¼-mile walk distance of bus service or streetcar service, or within a ½-mile of bus rapid transit, light or heavy rail, or ferry service.  This transit service has to meet levels of service frequency, in terms of weekday and weekend trips, that correspond with points, on a scale of one to seven points.  The number of trips necessary to achieve exemplary performance for bus/streetcar service is 640 weekday trips and 400 weekend trips, and for rapid transit/rail/ferry it is 100 weekday trips and 18 weekend trips.  NVNC would likely achieve the full seven points, as well as one point for exemplary performance.  The area is served by numerous bus routes (#41, #43, #33, #29, #26, #N16, #19, #N19, #25), several of which have very high levels of service, and some of the site is within a ½-mile walk of Skytrain service.  As an example, by LEED-ND metrics, the #41 bus service provides the Norquay area with 1570 weekday trips and 2280 weekend trips, and the #33 bus service provides the Norquay area with 660 weekday trips and 640 weekend trips.  Therefore, both of these bus routes would assist the project in qualifying for the full seven points plus one point for exemplary performance under this credit. Part of the goal of the NVNC planning process is to direct higher density development into neighbourhood centres, i.e. locations with convenient access to shops, services, and transit. The NVNC Plan addresses the content of this credit in that the plan states “city-wide policies should continue guiding actions in support of transit… Increasing service through extending hours and frequency, particularly with the prospect of local population growth” (page 65). However, SLLc3 pertains specifically to existing site conditions, so the assessment for this credit would not be impacted by any direction contained within the NVNC Plan.  SLLc4 - Bicycle Network and Storage NVNC: 0/1 NVNC with Redevelopment: 1/1  Key questions: Is there a bicycle network close? Will new nonresidential and multi-unit residential buildings provide bike racks for visitors and include secure, enclosed bike storage for employees?  Do new nonresidential buildings also include shower facilities for employees?  Assessment: While there is an existing City of Vancouver bicycle network that would enable the NVNC area to meet the bicycle network requirements of this credit, there is currently insufficient bike storage available. In addition, while the current City Parking By-law specifies significant bike storage (both for building occupants and visitors) to be provided in new buildings, as well as changing/shower facilities (as per Section 3.7.4.10 of the Building By-law), the by-law requirements do not directly align with the specific metrics specified under LEED-ND.  However, the requirements are sufficiently comparable that new development in NVNC would be expected to generally achieve the requirements of this credit. In addition, the NVNC Plan emphasizes the importance of improving the neighbourhood’s bike network, and planned additional network connections are noted 92  (page 19), along with anticipated increased bike parking, as new development occurs in accordance with the City Parking By-law (page 63).  SLLc5 - Housing and Jobs Proximity NVNC: 0/3  Key questions: Will the development create new jobs? Will these jobs be close to major transit and also close to existing dwelling units? Does the project include an affordable residential component?  Assessment: Currently there are approximately 1400 full-time-equivalent jobs within NVNC, and this number is expected to remain approximately the same under the NVNC Plan. Options 1 and 2 for this credit are focused on locating new housing near existing jobs. To obtain the full three points available under this credit (via Option 1 – Project with Affordable Residential Component), the project must provide a new non-market residential component, and also have existing full-time-equivalent jobs at least equal in quantity to the number of new dwelling units in the project.  While there are currently some non-market residential buildings in the area, the NVNC Plan does not specifically address the provision of new non-market housing; this is discussed further under the assessment for NPDc4 (Mixed-Income Diverse Communities).  In terms of existing jobs, the quantity (1400) is currently lower than the number of new dwelling units anticipated under the NVNC Plan, so the project would likely also not achieve this aspect of Option 1.  For this same reason, the project would also not be likely to achieve Option 2 (Project with Residential Component), worth 2 points. Option 3 (Infill Project with Nonresidential Component), worth 1 point, is focused on locating jobs near existing housing, and also near major transit.  Under the NVNC Plan, jobs are expected to remain approximately the same, so the area would likely not achieve this aspect of this Option.  In addition, to achieve this Option, the geographic centre of the project must be within a ½-mile walk distance of major transit (rail or ferry).  The NVNC area does not quite meet this requirement as the geographic centre of the area is slightly further than a ½-mile walk distance from 29th Avenue Station, the nearest Skytrain station. The NVNC Plan does not discuss job creation, addressing this topic only in relation to broader City planning processes, in that an overarching goal for the City’s neighbourhood centres planning program, as per the Vancouver CityPlan, is (p.6): To create lively neighbourhood centres that provide residents with a variety of housing, jobs, and services, and that become the public heart of each neighbourhood. Neighbourhood centres will help the environment by reducing the need to travel long distances from home to jobs and services.  SLLc6 - Steep Slope Protection NVNC: 1/1  Key question: Does the development disturb steep slopes? 93   Assessment: NVNC does not contain any large slopes with greater than 15% grade, so the site would automatically achieve this credit. The NVNC Plan does not address this topic.  SLLc7 – Site Design for Habitat or Wetland and Water Body Conservation NVNC: 1/1  Key question: Does the site contain wetlands, water bodies, or significant habitat for endangered species or ecological communities?  Assessment: NVNC likely does not contain wetlands, water bodies, or significant habitat for endangered species or ecological communities, and would therefore be expected to achieve this credit via Option 1 (Sites without Significant Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies).  However, as with SLLp2, it would be useful to determine the extent and condition of existing habitat fragments within City boundaries, whether this includes potential habitat for any endangered species or ecological communities.  This LEED-ND credit specifically addresses species and ecological communities listed or are candidates for listing under provincial or federal legislation (Species at Risk Act - SARA), are of special concern, or are ranked by NatureServe as G1-G3 and/or S1-S2, that have been found or are likely to be found (because of suitable habitat) on the project site.  The NVNC Plan does not address this topic.  SLLc8 - Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: Does the project include any restoration of predevelopment native ecological communities, wetlands, or water bodies? Is valuable ecological habitat protected in perpetuity?  Assessment: The NVNC Plan does not propose any ecological restoration or protection of significant habitat, wetlands, or water bodies, and so would not achieve this credit.  SLLc9 - Long-Term Conservation Management of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies NVNC: 0/1  Key question: Does the project commit to a longterm management plan for native habitats, wetlands, and water bodies?  Assessment: 94  The NVNC Plan does not address longterm management of significant habitat, wetlands, or water bodies, and so would not achieve this credit.     NEIGHBOURHOOD PATTERN AND DESIGN (NPD)  NPDp1 - Walkable Streets NVNC: Fail NVNC with NVNC Plan: Pass  Key questions: Do 90% of new principal entries face public space other than a parking lot? Does at least 15% of street frontage have a minimum building-height-to-street-width ratio of 1:3? Are there continuous sidewalks throughout the project, of at least eight feet wide for retail and mixed-use blocks, and four feet wide for all other blocks? Do less than 20% of street frontages face garage and service bay openings?  Assessment: NVNC would not achieve this prerequisite based on existing neighbourhood features. The NVNC Plan addresses this prerequisite in several sections, such as on page 19 under Objective 5 “Improve Safe and Enjoyable Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections while Seeking to Minimize Local Traffic Impacts,” and in more detail on page 63 under “Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements,” noting that a key goal is to complete the sidewalk network. Numerous planned improvements to the pedestrian realm are outlined in Appendix A of the NVNC Plan.  The NVNC Plan addresses the minimum building- height-to-street-width ratio aspect of this credit through increased densities provided along Kingsway. For example, if there is new development along Kingsway of seven stories in height, with 25-foot setbacks, this would result in a building-height-to-street- width ratio of approximately 1:2.7 (i.e. better than the specified minimum of 1:3). The NVNC Plan also addresses other aspects of this prerequisite related to desirable street frontages. The proposed design guidelines for Kingsway will also likely encourage development that achieves several of the components of this prerequisite.  In addition, City of Vancouver parking policy prevents new off-street surface parking from being constructed, and parking garage/service bay openings are generally now constructed to be facing back lanes. Once planned sidewalk improvements are undertaken, and as anticipated redevelopment occurs along Kingsway in accordance with the NVNC Plan, the area would likely meet the requirements of this prerequisite.  NPDp2 - Compact Development NVNC: Pass  Key questions: 95  Does the project meet minimum density requirements of 7 dwelling units/acre for residential and 0.5 FAR for nonresidential? If project has good transit service, does it meet minimum density requirements of 12 dwelling units/acre for residential and 0.8 FAR for nonresidential?  Assessment: Existing densities in NVNC exceed the minimum densities required by this prerequisite. The NVNC Plan also specifically addresses this topic in that a key feature of this plan is the rezoning of portions of this planning area such that increased densities are possible.  NPDp3 - Connected and Open Community NVNC: Fail  Key questions: If the project doesn’t have internal streets, is it located within an area that has a street connectivity of at least 90 intersections per square mile? If the project does have internal streets, does the internal street system have a connectivity of at least 140 intersections per square mile? Are there through-streets and/or non-motorized rights-of-way intersecting the project boundary at least every 800 feet?  Assessment: This prerequisite is a component of LEED-ND that makes this rating system challenging to apply to existing neighbourhoods. For the purposes of this LEED-ND assessment, the neighbourhood performs extremely well in terms of intersection density, with a high existing street connectivity of 640 intersections per square mile. The NVNC Plan indicates that additional intersections will be added in the future, further improving the neighbourhood’s connectivity, to approximately 673 intersections per square mile. However, NPDp3 also contains specific criteria for block length along the planning area boundary, and there are a few blocks along the NVNC boundary that are longer than the maximum 800 feet allowed; for example, along 41st Avenue between Nanaimo Street and Wales Street. The NVNC Plan addresses this issue on page 48, noting that long blocks in the neighbourhood, typically resulting from the impact of diagonally oriented Kingsway Street on the surrounding street network, create “situations where pedestrians must travel further than is typical to cross the street or connect to Kingsway from the surrounding neighbourhoods.” While the NVNC Plan does seek to add intersections and improve connectivity within the neighbourhood, it does not specifically address all of these long blocks along the planning area boundary. There is a clause to this prerequisite that does allow for some flexibility with the requirements, for example if there are existing buildings that prevent through-connections to be made (as an existing street grid with existing buildings is extremely challenging to change). However, in the case of an existing neighbourhood such as NVNC, where there is an existing block structure with existing buildings throughout, it would not make sense to apply this clause to the entire area being assessed. Therefore, the NVNC area does not quite meet all of the requirements of NPDp3, and future redevelopment in the area is not expected to change this. 96   NPDc1 - Walkable Streets NVNC: 2/12 NVNC with NVNC Plan: 10/12  Key questions: How far are street-facing building facades from the property line?  Are 80% of facades within 25 feet?  Are 50% of facades within 18 feet?  Are 50% of all mixed-use and nonresidential facades within 1 foot? (Items a-c) Do functional entries to buildings occur on average at least every 75 feet along nonresidential and mixed-use blocks?  Or every 30 feet?  (Items d and e) Do ground-level retail, service, and trade uses facing public space have 60% of their facades in clear glass?  Are windows unshuttered? (Items f and h) Is there a minimal amount of blank facades along sidewalks (i.e. no more than 50 feet for a facade, or 40% of its length)? (Item g) Is there on-street parking along at least 70% of both sides of streets? (Item i) Are there continuous sidewalks throughout the project, at least 10 feet wide on retail and mixed-use blocks, and 5 feet wide on all other blocks? (Item j) Do 50% of ground-floor dwelling units have an elevated finished floor at least 24 inches above the sidewalk grade? (Item k) Do 50% of office buildings and 100% of mixed-use buildings contain ground-floor retail along 60% of the street-level façade?  Are all businesses and community services on the ground floor accessible directly from sidewalks, and not parking lots? (Item l) Does at least 40% of street frontage have a minimum building-height-to-street-width ratio of 1:3? (Item m) Are 75% of new residential-only streets within the project designed for a target speed of no more than 32 km/hr?  Are 70% of new nonresidential or mixed-use streets designed for a target speed of no more than 40 km/hr? (Items n and o) Are at-grade crossings with driveways no more than 10% of the length of the sidewalks within the project? (Item p)  Assessment: This credit is worth more points (12) than any other credit in the LEED-ND rating system.  Points are allocated according to a table of “items achieved”, from one point for 2-3 items achieved, up to twelve points for 15-16 items achieved.  For NVNC, this credit was assessed primarily in terms of what the NVNC Plan addressed. Existing conditions in NVNC were deemed likely to achieve only a few items under this credit (e.g. a, d, i, k), equivalent to approximately 2 points, but this was not a comprehensive assessment; it is possible that existing conditions may achieve more points than this. The NVNC Plan does not specifically address some of the items available within the menu of items for this credit.  For example, the plan does not address target road speeds (items n and o), or height of ground-floor dwelling units (item k). Regarding item b, in the NVNC Plan the Small House/Duplex and Stacked Townhouse Zones’ required front yard is noted as approximately 16-24 feet (page 34). Together, these zones make up approx 78% of the total NVNC area, so this required setback would impact achievement of item b under this credit (50% of facades within 18 feet of the property line). However, the NVNC Plan 97  does indicate that several items would likely be achieved over time, and this assessment has been conducted from this perspective.  The NVNC Plan indicates the area has the potential to achieve items a, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, and p.  This is 13 out of the total of 16 items available, and corresponds to 10 out of 12 points.  NPDc2 – Compact Development NVNC: 3/6 NVNC with NVNC Plan: 5/6  Key question: What is the project’s density?  Assessment: The NVNC Plan proposes increasing densities both in residential areas and along the Kingsway nonresidential and mixed-use corridor.  Overall, dwelling units per acre could potentially increase from an existing density of approximately 20 units per acre on average to an estimated 50 units per acre on average.  Along Kingsway, nonresidential FAR could increase from the current FAR of significantly less than 2.5, to upwards of 3.2 FAR.  These increases in density correspond to an improvement in the score for this credit of approximately 2 points, from a likely 3 out of 6 points for the neighbourhood’s existing density, up to potentially 5 out of 6 points for the density anticipated under the proposed NVNC Plan.  NPDc3 – Mixed-Use Neighbourhood Centers NVNC: 2/4 NVNC with NVNC Plan: 3/4  Key question: How many diverse uses are within a ¼-mile walk of 50% of the project’s dwelling units?  Assessment: Although “diverse uses” include parks, schools, churches, childcare centres, and many other types of services, the majority of these uses will likely be found along Kingsway within the NVNC area.  Therefore the key consideration for this credit is the quantity of diverse uses along Kingsway, as the greater the number of diverse uses, the more points the project achieves.  The NVNC Plan does not indicate any expected increase in the number of jobs in the area, but does indicate a focus on maintaining and increasing retail, and encouraging local businesses along Kingsway.  The quantity of diverse uses may increase if the quantity of smaller storefronts increases, as sites along Kingsway are redeveloped.   The score for NVNC for this credit could therefore be expected to increase from a current 2 points for the existing quantity of diverse uses, up to potentially 3 or 4 points for anticipated diverse uses.  NPDc4 - Mixed-Income Diverse Communities NVNC: 0/7 NVNC with NVNC Plan: 3/7 98   Key questions: Is there a variety of housing sizes and types in the neighbourhood? Does the development include affordable housing?  Assessment: Option 1 (Diversity of Housing Types) for this credit looks at the variety of planned and existing housing in the area and assesses the diversity of the housing according to the Simpson Diversity Index.  The higher the Index score, the more points the project achieves, up to a maximum of three points for this Option.  The NVNC Plan indicates a significant increase in housing variety.  The existing neighbourhood has a large proportion of single-family homes, in particular, and might score in the range of a 0.48 Simpson Diversity Index score, which would not achieve any points under LEED-ND. The NVNC Plan proposes several new housing types for the neighbourhood, including mid-rise (six to eight stories, and occasionally up to ten stories) along Kingsway, and stacked townhouses and traditional rowhouses in existing RS-1 areas, in addition to increased duplexes, small infill units/cottages/laneway houses, and secondary suites. With the implementation of the new housing types proposed in the NVNC Plan, a Simpson Diversity Index score of 0.87 is possible (calculated at the mid-point of potential densities), which corresponds to the full three points available under this Option. Option 2 (Affordable Housing) for this credit pertains to the provision of new rental and/or for-sale dwelling units, priced for households earning below the area median income.  The NVNC Plan does not address the provision of new affordable housing in the neighbourhood, so would not contribute to achieving any additional points under this Option.  NVNC currently includes three non-market housing sites within the planning area boundary, which would not be sufficient to achieve points under Option 2.  NPDc5  - Reduced Parking Footprint NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: Are off-street parking lots avoided, or located at the side or rear of buildings? Are all individual surface parking lots smaller than 2 acres? Is less than 20% of the neighbourhood’s total development footprint off-street surface parking? Will new nonresidential and multi-unit residential buildings provide bike racks for visitors and include secure, enclosed bike storage for employees?  Do new nonresidential buildings also include shower facilities for employees? Are there sufficient carpool and/or shared-use vehicle parking spaces?  Assessment: The first part of this credit addresses the neighbourhood’s parking footprint.  In terms of existing surface parking, less than 20% of NVNC’s current total development footprint is off-street surface parking, and there are no existing parking lots larger than 2 acres in size.  However, there is a fair amount of existing off-street surface parking located at the front of non-residential buildings along Kingsway.  The City of Vancouver parking 99  requirements prevent any new off-street surface parking from being constructed, which would enable the NVNC area to achieve the parking footprint portion of this credit, as redevelopment occurs along Kingsway. The second part of this credit addresses bike parking/storage and shower facilities in new multi-unit residential and nonresidential buildings, as well as carpool/shared-use vehicle parking for nonresidential and mixed-use buildings. New development in the neighbourhood would generally achieve the bike parking/storage and shower facilities requirements, based on the City’s Parking By-law, as was the case with SLLc4 (“Bicycle Network and Storage”). However, the requirements for carpool and shared-use vehicle parking spaces are not covered by existing City policy or by-laws, nor by the NVNC Plan, so the NVNC area would not be expected to achieve this credit.  NPDc6 – Street Network NVNC: 0/2  Key questions: Does a through-street and/or nonmotorized right-of-way intersect the project boundary at least every 400 feet, or at existing abutting street intervals and intersections (whichever is the shorter distance)? Are there pedestrian or bicycle through-connections in at least 90% of any new culs-de- sacs?  Assessment: This credit requires that block lengths are relatively short, in general less than 400 feet (122 metres) long.  Most Vancouver blocks (other than some areas downtown) are longer than 400 feet, making this credit difficult to achieve, despite Vancouver’s lane system and relatively high intersection density.    Because of this, NVNC would not be able to achieve this portion of this credit, as there are numerous locations along the planning area boundary where there are blocks longer than 400 feet. However, as with the corresponding prerequisite NPDp3, it should be noted that LEED-ND does allow for some flexibility in this respect, where there are existing buildings and block patterns that prevent through connections to be made.  In terms of NVNC, this would apply to locations along the boundary where the block structure of NVNC matches (or has more through-connections than) the adjacent block structure outside the planning area boundary.  If long blocks that match adjacent block structure are ignored, then there are three locations that remain along the NVNC boundary where the block length is greater than 400 feet:  29th Avenue between Clarendon and Nanaimo, 41st Avenue between Clarendon and Nanaimo, and Euclid Avenue, between Earles and Duchess.  However, for the long block along Euclid Avenue, the NVNC Plan does specify the creation of a through-connection, via a new Ravine Linear Park, extending south from Ravine Street. This will reduce the block length of the five blocks that will be intersected by this proposed linear park, including a new intersection along the planning area boundary, bringing NVNC closer to achieving this credit.  In addition, a new internal through-street is proposed as an extension of Clarendon Street, from 34th Avenue to 33rd Avenue, and there will likely be additional through-streets created as redevelopment of large sites along Kingsway occurs; these will further improve the connectivity of the area’s street 100  network. In general, the block length in NVNC, including along the planning area boundary, tends to far exceed the 400-foot block length maximum stipulated by LEED- ND. If the LEED-ND caveats for existing buildings and block structure are taken into account, the neighbourhood would meet the credit requirements; however, it would be inappropriate to do this in this case, as the entire (built-out) neighbourhood would then automatically pass this requirement. This is an area of this LEED-ND assessment where the difficulty of applying a rating system designed to assess new development to an existing neighbourhood is apparent. The second aspect of this credit requires a high level of intersection density; 400 intersections per square mile for the full two points available under this credit.  The existing NVNC currently has an intersection density of 640 intersections per square mile. New intersections proposed under the draft plan increase the area’s intersection density to approximately 674 intersections per square mile, which far exceeds the two-point threshold for this credit. NVNC does not have any culs-de-sacs. Unfortunately, as NVNC does not meet the requirements of the first portion of this credit (for maximum block length), no points would be achieved by NVNC for this credit.  NPDc7 - Transit Facilities NVNC: 0/1 NVNC with NVNC Plan: 1/1  Key questions: Do transit stop locations have transit-agency-approved shelters that are covered and partially enclosed, with seating, illumination, transit schedules/route information, and bike racks? Has space for transit shelters and bike racks been reserved for any potential future new transit stops in the area?  Assessment: The goal of this credit is to encourage projects to work with transit agencies to provide necessary transit stop amenities. The NVNC Plan addresses NPDc7, “Transit Facilities,” stating a policy directive of “improving amenity at transit stops with shelters or other weather protection, benches, lighting, litter receptacles, and information” (page 65). While the NVNC Plan does not address the provision of bike parking at transit stops, this is not a requirement of the transit agency (Translink), and LEED-ND notes that bike parking may not necessarily be required if it is not a requirement of the transit agency. In general, the direction of the NVNC Plan indicates that NVNC will likely meet the criteria of this credit, once the planned improvements indicated in the NVNC Plan are implemented.  NPDc8 –Transportation Demand Management NVNC: 0/2  Key questions: Has a comprehensive transportation demand management program been created for the neighbourhood? 101  Are subsidized transit passes available to occupants? Is the project developer sponsoring the provision of any new transit service? Is there a local vehicle-sharing program? Is there unbundling of parking in new multi-unit residential buildings or nonresidential buildings?  Assessment: The existing NVNC would not be expected to achieve this credit, and this topic is not addressed in the NVNC Plan.  NVNC Plan does not include a local TDM program for the neighbourhood and there are no permanent Modo or Zipcar locations within NVNC, although some “car2go” vehicles may be found there.  There may be unbundling of parking in new multi-unit residential buildings or nonresidential buildings constructed as the neighbourhood redevelops, but this is not addressed in the NVNC Plan. While the NVNC Plan addresses movement and circulation in the neighbourhood, and discusses planned improvements to encourage walking, cycling, and transit, it does not address the specific TDM strategies covered under NPDc8.  NPDc9: Access to Civic and Public Space NVNC: 0/1 NVNC with NVNC Plan: 1/1  Key question: Is there a public square, park, or plaza of at least 1/6-acre in size, within ¼-mile walk of 90% of the building entrances?  Assessment: NVNC as it currently exists would likely not achieve this credit.  The southwest portion of the neighbourhood in particular has a significant number of dwelling units, likely over 10% of the total neighbourhood building entrances, which are greater than a ¼-mile walk from the nearest park, even when Jones Park (at Victoria Drive and 38th Avenue) is taken into consideration.  The northeast area also has a fair number of dwelling units outside the ¼-mile walk range.  However, the NVNC Plan proposes several new parks and public plazas.  In terms of community gathering spaces, the NVNC Plan identifies two priorities, “First, an indoor public gathering space that provides programming to meet the needs of residents, including artists, seniors, and youth. Second, an outdoor public gathering space that is programmable for community events and activities” (page 72). These will have a strong impact on the achievement of this credit, particularly as these proposed new amenities will be located in areas where there are also significant proposed increases in density.  Therefore, the proportion of building entrances located within the required ¼- mile walk distance of public parks and plazas will increase significantly, likely to over 90% of total building entrances in the area.  The new amenities (and co-located density) proposed under the NVNC Plan therefore will likely enable the area to achieve this credit.  NPDc10 - Access to Recreation Facilities NVNC: 1/1 102   Key question: Is there a public outdoor recreation facility of at least 1-acre in size, or a public indoor recreation facility of at least 25,000 square feet, within ½-mile walk of 90% of the building entrances?  Assessment: NVNC has several existing parks of greater than 1 acre in size, that are spread throughout the neighbourhood, such that there is likely one large park within a ½-mile walk of all building entrances.  Therefore, existing conditions in NVNC would likely achieve this credit.  In addition, improvements to some parks are proposed as part of the NVNC Plan, in particular for Norquay Park. The NVNC Plan notes parks are “major existing amenities” (page 27) and notes that “As the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre grows and evolves over time, new amenities and facilities will be needed to ensure the continued livability and desirability of the area” (page 69).  NPDc11 - Visitability and Universal Design NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: Are 20% of new dwelling units designed in accordance with the ICC/ANSI A117.1 standard (or as per LEED-ND universal design specifications for multi-unit residential buildings)? (Option 1) Have 100% of public rights-of-way been retrofitted in accordance with ADA-ABA Accessibility Guidelines?  Assessment: The NVNC Plan does not directly address accessibility.  It is unlikely that 20% of new dwelling units constructed as part of the redevelopment of this area will be built according to the ICC/ANSI A117.1 standard (Option 1).  It may be possible for the neighbourhood to achieve Option 2, if all public rights-of-way are retrofitted appropriately. The NVNC Plan addresses NPDc11, “Visitability and Universal Design,” noting that housing (page 28) and parks (page 70) should be designed with accessibility in mind. However, the NVNC plan is not specific or rigorous enough on this topic to indicate that the area would necessarily comply with NPDc11 requirements in the near future.  NPDc12: Community Outreach and Involvement NVNC: 0/2 NVNC with NVNC Plan: 1/2  Key questions: Were meetings with adjacent property owners, residents, business owners, workers, and local planning and community development officials organized early in the process? (Option 1) 103  Were community associations and/or local government partnered with to host open community meetings, to generate comments on project design from the beginning? (Option 1) Was the project’s conceptual design modified as a direct result of community input? (Option 1) Was an ongoing means of communication between the developer and the community established? (Option 1) Was a design charrette or interactive workshop of at least two days conducted? (Option 2) Was endorsement obtained from an ongoing local or regional program that systematically reviews and endorses smart growth development projects? (Option 3)  Assessment: The community engagement process undertaken as part of the NVNC planning program would likely comply with the requirements of Option 1 (worth 1 point), but not Options 2 or 3 (worth 2 points).  NPDc13: Local Food Production NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: Is the growing of produce allowed in any portion of residential yards (front, rear, side), balconies, patios, and rooftops? Is there dedicated, permanent, viable growing space with solar access, fencing, watering systems, garden bed enhancements, storage space for tools, pedestrian access, and local residents involved in the management of the space? (Option 1) Are there shares in a community-supported agriculture (CSA) program provided by developers of new residential units for 80% of new dwelling units for a minimum of two years? (Option 2) Is the centre of the project area within a ½-mile walk of a farmer’s market? (Option 3)  Assessment: There are no community gardens or farmers’ markets within the NVNC boundary, so the area would not be expected to achieve this credit. The NVNC Plan notes a policy directive for the area to “expand urban food growing and education in Norquay by proactive use of underutilized space (i.e. community gardens)” (page 70), but does not address this topic sufficiently to meet NPDc13 requirements.  NPDc14: Tree-Lined and Shaded Streets NVNC: 2/2 NVNC with NVNC Plan: 3/2  Key questions: Are there street trees on both sides of at least 60% of streets, between the vehicle travel way and the walkway, at intervals averaging no more than 40 feet? (Option 1) Do trees or other structures provide shade over at least 40% of sidewalks? (Option 2) 104   Assessment: NVNC already has street trees on the majority of streets.  There are likely street trees on both sides of more than 60% of streets, providing shade over more than 40% of sidewalks, enabling NVNC to achieve both Options 1 and 2 of this credit, for two points. In addition, the NVNC Plan calls for increased street tree plantings along Kingsway and Clarendon streets, which could enable the area to achieve an additional point for Exemplary Performance for this credit, for providing street trees on 90% of streets and/or shading at least 60% of sidewalks.  NPDc15 - Neighbourhood Schools NVNC: 1/1  Key questions: Are 50% of dwelling units within a ½-mile walk of an elementary school or within a 1- mile walk of a highschool? Do streets leading to the school have a complete network of sidewalks on both sides of the street, and either bicycle lanes or traffic calming measures? Are new schools within the following size maximums: high schools – 15 acres; middle schools – 10 acres; elementary schools – 5 acres?  Assessment: NVNC has two elementary schools, Cunningham and Norquay, that are located such that at least 50% of the area’s dwelling units are within a ½-mile walk.  In addition, the area around each school has sidewalks on both sides of the street, as well as crosswalks and traffic calming measures, so NVNC would be expected to achieve this credit.  In terms of size, Cunningham Elementary is relatively small – only 4.4 acres – so it falls with the required maximum size of 5 acres for new elementary schools under LEED-ND. Norquay Elementary is a bit larger – 5.9 acres – so it exceeds this specified maximum size.  However, both of these schools are existing schools, and this specified maximum is for newly-constructed schools, so it should not impede the achievement of this credit for NVNC. The NVNC Plan does not address neighbourhood schools. 105  Appendix B. Central Broadway LEED-ND Assessment: SLL and NPD Smart Location and Linkage (SLL) and Neighbourhood Pattern and Design (NPD) Assessment for Central Broadway  Notes: CB = Central Broadway (existing neighbourhood) CB with Redevelopment = Central Broadway with redevelopment according to existing policies and by- laws CB with Draft CCBDG = Central Broadway with redevelopment according to Draft C-3A Central Broadway Design Guidelines  This summary is structured into two components for each prerequisite or credit covered: 3. Key question(s):  This is a simplified overview of the requirements outlined in the prerequisite or credit, worded as a question or a few questions. 4. Assessment: This assessment looks at the Central Broadway planning area as a LEED-ND project to determine if the neighbourhood would generally meet the requirements of the LEED-ND program.  SMART LOCATION AND LINKAGE (SLL) Note: The five SLL prerequisites and credits SLLc1 and SLLc3 were not assessed in terms of the impacts that redevelopment according to existing policy and/or the Draft CCBDG would have, as these prerequisites and credits are achieved based on existing conditions only.  SLLp1 - Smart Location CB: Pass  Key questions: Is there existing water and wastewater infrastructure? Is the project site an infill site? (Option 1) Is the project adjacent to and well connected to existing development? (Option 2) Is the site well served by transit? (Option 3) Are there many community amenities located within walking distance? (Option 4)  Assessment: Most of the City of Vancouver would likely qualify as an infill site (Option 1).  The Central Broadway area would also likely qualify as an adjacent site with good connectivity (Option 2), as a site well-served by transit (Option 3), and as a site with sufficient community amenities within walking distance (Option 4).  So the Central Broadway area would be expected to achieve this prerequisite, with a choice of options by which to do so.  SLLp2 – Imperiled Species and Ecological Communities Conservation CB: Pass  Key question: 106  Will the development avoid potential habitat for imperiled species and ecological communities?  Assessment: It is unlikely that there is currently any suitable habitat for endangered species or ecological communities within the Central Broadway area, so it would be expected to achieve this prerequisite.  However, mapping of potential habitat for endangered species or ecological communities would be valuable information to have in general, for the City of Vancouver.  For LEED-ND purposes it would be useful to know the extent and condition of existing habitat fragments within City boundaries, whether this includes potential habitat for any endangered species, and how these areas could best be protected, managed, enhanced and potentially connected, over the longterm, to maximize their ecological value.  This LEED-ND prerequisite specifically addresses species and ecological communities listed under provincial or federal legislation (Species at Risk Act - SARA), or ranked by NatureServe as GH-G2, that have been found or are likely to be found (because of suitable habitat) on the project site.  SLLp3 - Wetland and Water Body Conservation CB: Pass  Key question: Will the development avoid wetlands and water bodies?  Assessment: The Central Broadway area would be expected to achieve this prerequisite, qualifying via Option 1 (Sites with No Wetlands, Water Bodies, Land within 50 Feet of Wetlands, or Land within 100 Feet of Water Bodies).  Central Broadway could also qualify via Option 2 (Sites with Wetlands, Water Bodies, Land within 50 Feet of Wetlands, or Land within 100 Feet of Water Bodies) as it is on previously developed land.  SLLp4 - Agricultural Land Conservation CB: Pass  Key question: Will the development avoid prime agricultural land?  Assessment: The Central Broadway area does not include any prime agricultural land, so would be expected to achieve this prerequisite.  SLLp5 – Floodplain Avoidance CB: Pass  Key question: Will the development avoid floodplains?  107  Assessment: The Central Broadway area would be expected to achieve this prerequisite, as it does not contain any land within the regulatory floodplain.  SLLc1 - Preferred Locations CB: 11/10 points  Key questions: Is the project site a previously developed site?  An infill site?  Adjacent to existing development?  Does it have good connectivity?  Assessment: The Central Broadway area would be expected to achieve five points (out of five points available) under Option 1 (“Location Type) of this credit, for being an infill site that is also a previously developed site.  The Central Broadway area would also be expected to achieve five points (out of five points available) under Option 2 (“Connectivity”) of this credit, as the Central Broadway area has approximately 870 intersections per square mile. Only 400 intersections per square mile are required to achieve the full five points under Option 2.  600 intersections per square mile allow the project area to qualify for “Exemplary Performance” so, with approximately 870 intersections per square mile, the Central Broadway area would also be expected to achieve a point for exemplary performance for this credit.  Note that new intersections identified in the planning program are not included in this calculation – this credit is just for existing intersections.  SLLc2 - Brownfields Redevelopment CB: 0/2 CB with Redevelopment: 1/2  Key question: Are there any brownfields on the site that will be remediated?  Assessment: Within the Central Broadway area there are a few gas stations that could become documented brownfield sites in the near future, and would likely require remediation as part of the redevelopment process. Therefore, the Central Broadway area would have the potential to achieve the two points available for this credit.  However, it would be beneficial to map potential brownfield sites in the area and examine more closely factors that may impede future redevelopment of these sites.  The second point under this credit is for “high priority” brownfield sites; there do not appear to be any high priority brownfield sites in the area at this time.  SLLc3 - Locations with Reduced Automobile Dependence CB: 8/7  Key questions: Is the site well-served by transit? 108  Does the area have a per capita VKT that is lower than the average for the region?  Assessment: The Central Broadway area has significant transit service, but has an even higher demand for transit, resulting in strained transit service, particularly at peak hours.  The specific requirements for Option 1 (“Transit-Served Location”) for this credit require 40% of dwelling units to be within a ¼-mile walk distance of bus service or streetcar service, or within a ½-mile of bus rapid transit, light or heavy rail, or ferry service.  This transit service has to meet levels of service frequency, in terms of weekday and weekend trips, that correspond with points, on a scale of one to seven points.  The number of trips necessary to achieve exemplary performance for bus/streetcar service is 640 weekday trips and 400 weekend trips, and for rapid transit/rail/ferry it is 100 weekday trips and 18 weekend trips.  Despite the fact that transit service along Broadway is strained due to high demand, the Central Broadway area would likely achieve the full seven points, as well as one point for exemplary performance. The area is served by numerous bus routes, including bus rapid transit, and the central portion of the site is within a ½-mile walk of rail rapid transit (Canada Line) service.  SLLc4 - Bicycle Network and Storage CB: 0/1 CB with Redevelopment: 1/1  Key questions: Is there a bicycle network close by? Will new nonresidential and multi-unit residential buildings provide bike racks for visitors and include secure, enclosed bike storage for employees?  Do new nonresidential buildings also include shower facilities for employees?  Assessment: The existing City of Vancouver bicycle network enables the Central Broadway area meet the bicycle network component of this credit via the existing City of Vancouver cycling routes that are within the Central Broadway area’s boundaries, including: 10th Avenue, Cypress, Heather, Off-Broadway, Ontario, and Yukon bikeways.  The current City Parking By-law specifies significant bike storage, both for building occupants and visitors, as well as changing facilities (covered under Section 3.7.4.10 of the Building By-law). While the City Parking By-law requirements do not directly align with the specific metrics specified under LEED-ND, the requirements are sufficiently comparable that Central Broadway could be expected to achieve this credit.  SLLc5 - Housing and Jobs Proximity CB: 0/3 CB with Draft CCBDG: 2/3  Key questions: Will the development create new jobs? Will these jobs be close to major transit and also close to existing dwelling units? 109  Does the project include an affordable residential component?  Assessment: Options 1 and 2 for this credit are focused on locating housing near existing jobs.  To obtain the full three points available under this credit (via Option 1 – Project with Affordable Residential Component), the project must include a non-market residential component equivalent to at least 30% of the project’s total building square footage, which does not apply to Central Broadway. Option 2 requires the project to include a residential component equivalent to at least 30% of the project’s total building square footage, and the project must also have an equivalent amount of existing full-time jobs within a ½-mile walk. Option 3 requires the project to include a non-residential component equivalent to at least 30% of the project’s total building square footage, and to locate on an infill site within a ½-mile walk of rapid transit, and near an existing number of dwelling units equivalent to at least 50% of the number of new full-time jobs created as part of the project. Options 2 and 3 could both potentially apply to Central Broadway, as a significant number of new jobs are anticipated in the area in the coming years (as per the 2007 Metropolitan Core Jobs & Economy Land Use Plan), the Central Broadway area is surrounded by a significant amount of residential buildings, and the Canada Line will run through the centre of this area.  SLLc6 - Steep Slope Protection CB: 0/1  Key question: Does the development disturb steep slopes (>15%)?  Assessment: The Central Broadway area contains slopes with greater than 15% grade, and would likely not achieve this credit, as there is no specific policy for this planning area regarding the avoidance of steep slopes.  SLLc7 – Site Design for Habitat or Wetland and Water Body Conservation CB: 1/1  Key question: Does the site contain wetlands, water bodies, or significant habitat for endangered species or ecological communities?  Assessment:  The Central Broadway area likely does not contain wetlands, water bodies, or significant habitat for endangered species or ecological communities, and would therefore be expected to achieve this credit via Option 1 (Sites without Significant Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies).  However, as with SLLp2, it would be useful to determine the extent and condition of existing habitat fragments within City boundaries, and 110  whether this includes potential habitat for any endangered species or ecological communities.  This LEED-ND credit specifically addresses species and ecological communities that are listed or are candidates for listing under provincial or federal legislation (Species at Risk Act - SARA), are of special concern, or are ranked by NatureServe as G1-G3 and/or S1-S2, that have been found or are likely to be found (because of suitable habitat) on the project site.  SLLc8 - Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies CB: 0/1  Key questions: Does the project include any restoration of predevelopment native ecological communities, wetlands, or water bodies? Is valuable ecological habitat protected in perpetuity?  Assessment: There are currently no plans for significant ecological restoration in the Central Broadway area.  Future planning for Central Broadway could specify restoration work, which would enable the area to achieve this credit.  However, the threshold to achieve under LEED-ND is restoration of 10% of the project’s development footprint; as the restoration of 10% of the Central Broadway area is highly unlikely, the area is not expected to achieve this credit.  SLLc9 - Long-Term Conservation Management of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies CB: 0/1  Key question: Does the project commit to a longterm management plan for native habitats, wetlands, and water bodies?  Assessment: The Central Broadway area does not currently have significant habitat, wetlands, or water bodies, and has no plans for restoration work; therefore no longterm management plan for such areas is in place.  Future planning for the Central Broadway area could specify longterm management for restored areas, which would enable Central Broadway to achieve this credit.  There is no specific quantity of restored land that the management plan must be for, but the plan must cover at least a ten-year period and have a guaranteed source of funding for implementation.     NEIGHBOURHOOD PATTERN AND DESIGN (NPD)  NPDp1 - Walkable Streets 111  CB: Pass  Key questions: Do 90% of new principal entries face public space other than a parking lot? Does at least 15% of street frontage have a minimum building-height-to-street-width ratio of 1:3? Are there continuous sidewalks throughout the project, of at least eight feet wide for retail and mixed-use blocks, and four feet wide for all other blocks? Do less than 20% of street frontages face garage and service bay openings?  Assessment: Existing conditions along Central Broadway likely meet the requirements of this prerequisite.  The vast majority of building frontages face public space, and there are very few surface parking lots remaining in this area.  Much of Central Broadway is approximately 30 metres from façade to façade, so to attain a building-height-to-street- width (BHTSW) ratio of 1:3 would require building heights of over 10 metres, or greater than 3 stories. While much of Central Broadway remains at one- to three-stories in height, there are significant portions (i.e. greater than 15%) that are much higher, exceeding a BHTSW ratio of 1:3. Central Broadway consists largely of retail and mixed- use blocks, which generally meet the minimum sidewalk width requirement of eight feet. There are relatively few garage and service bay openings along Central Broadway (many are off of back alleys), so less than 20% of street frontages face garage and service bay openings. The existing design guidelines for Central Broadway are generally supportive of the requirements of this prerequisite, although do not state these requirements directly. One of the key objectives of the Draft CCBDG is to “ensure the public realm of the street is attractive, sustainable, pedestrian-oriented and is supportive of uses at grade,” and several sections of these draft guidelines cover aspects of this prerequisite.  NPDp2 - Compact Development CB: Pass  Key questions: Does the project meet minimum density requirements of 7 dwelling units/acre for residential and 0.5 FAR for nonresidential? If project has good transit service, does it meet minimum density requirements of 12 dwelling units/acre for residential and 0.8 FAR for nonresidential?  Assessment: The current densities in the Central Broadway area exceed the minimum required densities of this prerequisite, and so the area would be expected to achieve this prerequisite. The Draft CCBDG address the topic of this prerequisite in that they provide guidelines for how additional density may best be accommodated within the Central Broadway area.  NPDp3 - Connected and Open Community CB: Pass 112   Key questions: If the project doesn’t have internal streets, is it located within an area that has a street connectivity of at least 90 intersections per square mile? If the project does have internal streets, does the internal street system have a connectivity of at least 140 intersections per square mile? Are there through-streets and/or non-motorized rights-of-way intersecting the project boundary at least every 800 feet?  Assessment: The Central Broadway area has a very high existing street connectivity of approximately 870 intersections per square mile, far exceeding the intersection density requirement of this prerequisite.  Central Broadway also does not contain any blocks longer than 800 feet, so the area would be expected to pass this prerequisite. The Draft CCBDG do not address block length and street connectivity.  NPDc1 - Walkable Streets CB: 8/12 CB with Draft CCBDG: 10/12  Key questions: How far are street-facing building facades from the property line?  Are 80% of facades within 25 feet?  Are 50% of facades within 18 feet?  Are 50% of all mixed-use and nonresidential facades within 1 foot? (Items a-c) Do functional entries to buildings occur on average at least every 75 feet along nonresidential and mixed-use blocks?  Or every 30 feet?  (Items d and e) Do ground-level retail, service, and trade uses facing public space have 60% of their facades in clear glass?  Are windows unshuttered? (Items f and h) Is there a minimal amount of blank facades along sidewalks (i.e. no more than 50 feet for a facade, or 40% of its length)? (Item g) Is there on-street parking along at least 70% of both sides of streets? (Item i) Are there continuous sidewalks throughout the project, at least 10 feet wide on retail and mixed-use blocks, and 5 feet wide on all other blocks? (Item j) Do 50% of ground-floor dwelling units have an elevated finished floor at least 24 inches above the sidewalk grade? (Item k) Do 50% of office buildings and 100% of mixed-use buildings contain ground-floor retail along 60% of the street-level façade?  Are all businesses and community services on the ground floor accessible directly from sidewalks, and not parking lots? (Item l) Does at least 40% of street frontage have a minimum building-height-to-street-width ratio of 1:3? (Item m) Are 75% of new residential-only streets within the project designed for a target speed of no more than 32 km/hr?  Are 70% of new nonresidential or mixed-use streets designed for a target speed of no more than 40 km/hr? (Items n and o) Are at-grade crossings with driveways no more than 10% of the length of the sidewalks within the project? (Item p)  113  Assessment: This credit is worth more points (12) than any other credit in the LEED-ND rating system.  Points are allocated according to a table of “items achieved”, from one point for 2-3 items achieved, up to twelve points for 15-16 items achieved. Existing conditions along Central Broadway achieve: items a-c, as over 50% of all facades are within one foot of the property line; items d and e, as functional entries occur on average at least every 30 feet; items f and h, as ground-level retail, service and trade uses have 60% of their facades in clear glass, and windows are unshuttered; item g, as there is a minimal amount of blank facades; item l, as the majority of office buildings and all mixed-use buildings contain ground-floor retail along 60% of the street-level façade, and businesses and services are accessible directly from sidewalks; item m, as greater than 40% of the street frontage is greater than three stories in height, achieving a BHTSW ratio of greater than 1:3; and item p, as no more than 10% of the length of the sidewalks have at-grade crossings with driveways. Existing conditions along Central Broadway do not achieve: item i, j, k, n and o. Overall, existing conditions in Central Broadway would likely achieve 11 out of 16 items, which corresponds to 8 out of 12 points. Of the items that would not be achieved based on existing conditions, items i (on-street parking requirements), n and o (street speeds) are not addressed in the Draft CCBDG. Item i cannot be achieved as the bus lane along both sides of Broadway during rush hour displaces on-street parking. While rapid transit planning is underway for the Central Broadway area, it is not possible to ascertain at this time whether a future system would allow for street parking at all times along the street. Items n and o cannot be achieved as streets in the area are generally not designed for speeds of less than 40km/hr, and this is not expected to change in the near future. Item j is not achieved by existing conditions because, while there are continuous sidewalks throughout the area, these are not all at least 10 feet wide on all retail and mixed-use blocks. Item j is addressed in the Draft CCBDG, which states: “Buildings should be set back from the street curb a minimum sidewalk depth of 5.5 meters [approximately 18 feet] wide between curb and building front.” Item k (elevated finished floor level for ground-floor dwelling units), is not achieved based on existing conditions, as the majority of ground-floor dwelling units are not 24 inches above the sidewalk grade. Item k is addressed in the Draft CCBDG, which states that “Residential uses at grade are encouraged where the prevailing context at grade is also residential” and that “Residential uses at grade should…be raised a minimum of 0.6 meters (2 feet) above the street level.” So it is anticipated that, as redevelopment of ground-floor dwelling units occurs within Central Broadway, an increasing proportion of ground-floor dwelling units in the area will be 24 inches or more above sidewalk grade, and the requirements of item k will be met. Therefore, Central Broadway, if built out in accordance with the Draft CCBDG, would likely achieve items j and k in addition to items met by existing conditions (i.e. 13 out of 16 items), which corresponds to 10 out of 12 points for NPDc1.  NPDc2 – Compact Development CB: 5/6 CB with Redevelopment: 6/6  Key question: 114  What is the project’s density?  Assessment: Much of the Central Broadway area falls under C-3A zoning, which allows outright an FSR of 1.0, and up to an FSR of 3.0 with approval from the Development Permit Board; to obtain additional density, projects must go through the rezoning process. Existing built densities in the Uptown Office District (between Oak and Yukon streets) and mixed-use commercial hubs at Granville and Main have much higher densities. In general, Central Broadway’s current actual built density is an approximate average FSR of 2.25-3, which would correspond to the achievement of 5 points under this credit (values for built density was determined by visual assessment of the area, and rough estimates of FSR). As gradual redevelopment continues throughout Central Broadway, the average FSR would be expected to increase, and Central Broadway would be expected to achieve the full six points available under this credit. As part of the current planning process for Central Broadway, the City is proposing raising the conditional FSR limit to 5, for commercial-only development. This would enable a greater number of projects to be built to 5 FSR, without requiring a rezoning. The Draft CCBDG do not refer to these proposed changes in FSR, but provide guidance on incorporating larger projects into the Central Broadway area.  NPDc3 – Mixed-Use Neighbourhood Centers CB: 4/4  Key question: How many diverse uses are within a ¼-mile walk of 50% of the project’s dwelling units?  Assessment: The maximum amount of points achievable under this credit is 4 points, for 50% of dwelling units within the project being within approximately 400 metres (or slightly over 2 blocks, in the case of Central Broadway) of greater than 19 diverse uses.  Due to the large number of uses along the majority of streets in the Central Broadway area, existing conditions would be expected to achieve 4 points. The Draft CCBDG encourage maintaining and increasing diverse uses at grade in new development, stating “At-grade floor space fronting onto Broadway should be designed to accommodate active commercial, retail, or service uses.”  NPDc4 - Mixed-Income Diverse Communities CB: 1/7  Key questions: Is there a variety of housing sizes and types in the neighbourhood? Does the development include affordable housing?  Assessment: Option 1 (Diversity of Housing Types) for this credit looks at the variety of planned and existing housing in the area and assesses the diversity of the housing according to the 115  Simpson Diversity Index.  The higher the Index score, the more points the project achieves, up to a maximum of three points for this Option. Insufficient data was available to determine how the existing residential buildings within Central Broadway would score according to the requirements of Option 1.  Current residential buildings within the Central Broadway area display a range in buildings types and in dwelling unit sizes. While the area would be expected to achieve at least one point under the Simpson Diversity Index, the neighbourhood’s actual score is likely higher.  Residential units tend to be in multi-unit residential buildings, typically ranging in size from four stories to nine stories or more. Option 2 (Affordable Housing) for this credit pertains to the provision of new rental and/or for-sale dwelling units, priced for households earning below the area median income (a minimum of 5% of total new dwelling units is required). The Central Broadway area contains 149 units of non-market housing, located in three buildings. To obtain points for affordable housing under this credit, at minimum of 5% of all dwelling units must meet the Option 2 pricing requirements.  As the Central Broadway area likely contains more than 2980 dwelling units, 149 dwelling units is expected to be less than 5% of all dwelling units, and so would not meet the requirements of Option 2. The Draft CCBDG do not directly address housing diversity or affordable housing, and it is unclear whether new development in the area would contribute towards the achievement of more points under this credit.  NPDc5  - Reduced Parking Footprint CB: 0/1  Key questions: Are off-street parking lots avoided, or located at the side or rear of buildings? Are all individual surface parking lots smaller than 2 acres? Is less than 20% of the neighbourhood’s total development footprint off-street surface parking? Will new nonresidential and multi-unit residential buildings provide bike racks for visitors and include secure, enclosed bike storage for employees?  Do new nonresidential buildings also include shower facilities for employees? Are there sufficient carpool and/or shared-use vehicle parking spaces?  Assessment: The first part of this credit addresses the neighbourhood’s parking footprint.  In terms of existing surface parking, less than 20% of Central Broadway’s current total development footprint is off-street surface parking, and there are no existing parking lots larger than 2 acres in size.  Off-street parking lots are avoided or located at the rear of buildings, as per the existing Central Broadway C-3A Urban Design Guidelines. The second part of this credit addresses bike parking/storage and shower facilities in new multi-unit residential and nonresidential buildings, as well as carpool/shared-use vehicle parking for nonresidential and mixed-use buildings. The majority of existing buildings in Central Broadway do not meet this aspect of the NPDc5 requirements. New development in the neighbourhood would generally achieve the bike parking/storage and shower facilities requirements, based on the City’s Parking By-law (and Section 3.7.4.10 of the 116  Building By-law), as was the case with SLLc4 (“Bicycle Network and Storage”). However, the requirements for carpool and shared-use vehicle parking spaces are not covered by existing City policy or by-laws, nor by the Draft CCBDG, so the Central Broadway area would not be expected to achieve this credit. The Draft CCBDG also do not address bike storage.  NPDc6 – Street Network CB: 0/2  Key questions: Does a through-street and/or nonmotorized right-of-way intersect the project boundary at least every 400 feet, or at existing abutting street intervals and intersections (whichever is the shorter distance)? Are there pedestrian or bicycle through-connections in at least 90% of any new culs-de- sacs?  Assessment: This credit requires that block lengths are relatively short; in general less than 400 feet (122 metres) long.  Most Vancouver blocks (other than some areas downtown) are longer than 400 feet, making this credit difficult to achieve, despite Vancouver’s lane system and relatively high intersection density.  Because of this, the Central Broadway area would not be able to achieve this portion of this credit, as there are numerous locations along the planning program area boundary where there are blocks longer than 400 feet long. If the LEED-ND caveats for existing buildings and block structure are taken into account, the neighbourhood would meet the credit requirements; however, it would be inappropriate to do this in the case of an existing neighbourhood, as the entire (built-out) neighbourhood would then automatically pass this requirement. This is an area of this LEED-ND assessment where the difficulty of applying a rating system designed to assess new development to an existing neighbourhood is apparent. The second aspect of this credit requires a high level of intersection density; 400 intersections per square mile for the full two points available under this credit.  The existing Central Broadway area currently has an intersection density of 870 intersections per square mile, which far exceeds the two-point threshold for this credit.  Unfortunately, as the Central Broadway area does not meet the requirements of the first portion of this credit (for maximum block length), these points would not be achieved. The Central Broadway area does not have any culs-de-sacs. This topic is not addressed within the Draft CCBDG.  NPDc7 - Transit Facilities CB: 0/1  Key questions: Do transit stop locations have transit-agency-approved shelters that are covered and partially enclosed, with seating, illumination, transit schedules/route information, and bike racks? 117  Has space for transit shelters and bike racks been reserved for any potential future new transit stops in the area?  Assessment: The goal of this credit is to encourage projects to work with transit agencies to provide necessary transit stop amenities.  While transit stops in the Central Broadway area have many of the features listed (e.g. covered, partially enclosed, seating, illumination, transit schedules/route information), there are features that are lacking (e.g. bike racks) and many transit stops in the area do not have any of these features, so Central Broadway would not be expected to achieve this credit. This topic is not addressed within the Draft CCBDG.  NPDc8 –Transportation Demand Management CB: 1/2  Key questions: Has a comprehensive transportation demand management program been created for the neighbourhood? Are subsidized transit passes available to occupants? Is the project developer sponsoring the provision of any new transit service? Is there a local vehicle-sharing program? Is there unbundling of parking in new multi-unit residential buildings or nonresidential buildings?  Assessment: Central Broadway does not have a TDM program, subsidized transit passes, or developer- sponsored transit.  There may be unbundling of parking in new multi-unit residential buildings or nonresidential buildings constructed as the neighbourhood redevelops, but this is not currently specified in the zoning.  There are numerous Modo and Zipcar locations throughout the area, located in close proximity to most building entrances (as well, many “car2go” vehicles may be found), so the area could be expected to achieve 1 point for this aspect of the credit. Neither existing City by-laws, City policy, nor the Draft CCBDG address the other credit requirements sufficiently to achieve additional points under this credit.  NPDc9: Access to Civic and Public Space CB: 1/1  Key question: Is there a public square, park, or plaza of at least 1/6-acre in size, within ¼-mile walk of 90% of the building entrances?  Assessment: There are a variety of parks and plazas in and in close proximity to the Central Broadway area. The vast majority of the area (likely greater than 90%) would meet the requirement of a ¼-mile walking distance from a park or public space. It is worth noting that the area 118  along Broadway between Burrard and Granville streets is somewhat deficient in parks and significant public spaces. However, the community gardens along the 6th Avenue railroad tracks (between Maple and Fir) meet the LEED-ND criteria for this credit, and the green space outside the Vancouver School Board building at Fir Street and 10th Avenue qualifies as well; these are both within a ¼-mile walk of most buildings in this area. The Draft CCBDG do not address the provision of these amenities.  NPDc10 - Access to Recreation Facilities CB: 1/1 point  Key question: Is there a public outdoor recreation facility of at least 1-acre in size, or a public indoor recreation facility of at least 25,000 square feet, within ½-mile walk of 90% of the building entrances?  Assessment: The Central Broadway area is close to several existing parks of greater than 1 acre in size; these are located such that there is likely one large park within a ½-mile walk of all building entrances, and so the Central Broadway area would likely achieve this credit. The Draft CCBDG do not address the provision of these amenities.  NPDc11 - Visitability and Universal Design CB: 0/1  Key questions: Are 20% of new dwelling units designed in accordance with the ICC/ANSI A117.1 standard (or as per LEED-ND universal design specifications for multi-unit residential buildings)? (Option 1) Have 100% of public rights-of-way been retrofitted in accordance with ADA-ABA Accessibility Guidelines? (Option 2)  Assessment: Central Broadway area does not currently meet the requirements of either Option 1 or Option 2. While the City of Vancouver has some general accessibility requirements for public rights-of-way, and it may be possible in the future for the area to achieve Option 2 if all public rights-of-way are retrofitted appropriately, current conditions do not meet the criteria of this credit. This topic is not addressed within the Draft CCBDG, and it is not clear whether retrofitting existing right-of-ways that are noncompliant is a priority for this planning area.  NPDc12: Community Outreach and Involvement CB: 0/2 CB with Draft CCBDG/planning process: 1/2  Key questions: 119  Were meetings with adjacent property owners, residents, business owners, workers, and local planning and community development officials organized early in the process? (Option 1) Were community associations and/or local government partnered with to host open community meetings, to generate comments on project design from the beginning? (Option 1) Was the project’s conceptual design modified as a direct result of community input? (Option 1) Was an ongoing means of communication between the developer and the community established? (Option 1) Was a design charrette or interactive workshop of at least two days conducted? (Option 2) Was endorsement obtained from an ongoing local or regional program that systematically reviews and endorses smart growth development projects? (Option 3)  Assessment: The planning process undertaken for Central Broadway would likely comply with the requirements of Option 1 (worth 1 point), but not Options 2 or 3 (worth 2 points).  NPDc13 - Local Food Production CB: 0/1  Key questions: Is the growing of produce allowed in any portion of residential yards (front, rear, side), balconies, patios, and rooftops? Is there a significant amount of dedicated, permanent, viable growing space with solar access, fencing, watering systems, garden bed enhancements, storage space for tools, pedestrian access, and local residents involved in the management of the space? (Option 1) Are there shares in a community-supported agriculture (CSA) program provided by developers of new residential units for 80% of new dwelling units for a minimum of two years? (Option 2) Is the centre of the project area within a ½-mile walk of a farmer’s market? (Option 3)  Assessment: The Central Broadway area does contain community gardens, such as along the 6th Avenue railroad tracks (between Maple and Fir) and at City Hall.  However, there is insufficient community garden area in total to meet the LEED-ND requirements, as the minimum area required under LEED-ND is 60 square feet of growing space per dwelling unit. The Central Broadway area also would not achieve Options 2 or 3, as developers in the area generally would not purchase CSA shares for new residents, and the closest farmers’ markets (Kitsilano and Thornton Park) are not within a ½-mile walk of the Central Broadway area’s geographic centre, so the area would not be expected to achieve this credit. This topic is addressed within the Draft CCBDG. Section 8.2, “Site Landscaping,” states: “For those projects that are suited by location, orientation, land use mix and design for growing food, the applicant should demonstrate how they will provide 120  urban agriculture opportunities that meet the Urban Agriculture Guidelines For The Private Realm.”  In addition, section 5.1, “Roofs,” states that the design of roofs should support urban agriculture, among other objectives. However, the City’s Urban Agriculture Guidelines For The Private Realm specify a minimum of 24 square feet of garden space per dwelling unit, provided for 30% of dwelling units in a building, which is less than the LEED-ND minimum of 60 square feet per dwelling unit, for all units in a building. While new development in the area may be encouraged to contain some space for urban agriculture, it would not be expected to meet the LEED-ND requirements for this credit.  NPDc14 - Tree-Lined and Shaded Streets CB: 2/2 CB with Draft CCBDG: 3/2  Key questions: Are there street trees on both sides of at least 60% of streets, between the vehicle travel way and the walkway, at intervals averaging no more than 40 feet? (Option 1) Do trees or other structures provide shade over at least 40% of sidewalks? (Option 2)  Assessment: While portions of Broadway do not have street trees, there are sufficient plantings along Broadway and along many of the sidestreets and adjacent streets that fall within the Central Broadway planning area, such that it is likely that 60% of streets within the planning area have trees planted every 40 feet. However, some of these trees were planted relatively recently, and are either columnar varieties or are quite small, and so currently likely do not likely shade more than 40% of sidewalks.  However, the credit requirements allow for shading provided by trees within 10 years of installation.  This combined with the allowance for shade provided by other structures (e.g. awnings), means that the Central Broadway area would likely achieve Option 2 as well, garnering 2 points for this credit. The Draft CCBDG refer to the Draft Principles and Objectives For Street Trees In Central Broadway, which state: “Plant enough trees to achieve full canopy coverage of pedestrian areas within 15 years…Plant at least a single row of trees, and where building setbacks allow (such as corner conditions) seek a double row or a single row of large species trees.” The Draft CCBDG strongly support increased street tree planting, with the Draft Principles and Objectives For Street Trees In Central Broadway emphasizing the provision of shade to sidewalks, so it is likely that Central Broadway will obtain sufficient coverage in the future to achieve an additional point for Exemplary Performance.  NPDc15 - Neighbourhood Schools CB: 1/1  Key questions: Are 50% of dwelling units within a ½-mile walk of an elementary school or within a 1- mile walk of a highschool? 121  Do streets leading to the school have a complete network of sidewalks on both sides of the street, and either bicycle lanes or traffic calming measures? Are new schools within the following size maximums: high schools – 15 acres; middle schools – 10 acres; elementary schools – 5 acres?  Assessment: While Central Broadway does not have many schools right within the planning area, there are several elementary schools (Henry Hudson, Tennyson, False Creek, L’Ecole Bilingue, Nightingale, Fraser, and Mount Pleasant) and one highschool (Kitsilano) around the periphery. These are located such that it is probable that 50% of dwelling units within the Central Broadway are within a ½-mile walk of an elementary school or a 1- mile walk of a highschool. Streets leading to schools generally have sidewalks on both sides of the streets, and there are several bike routes in the area.  There are crosswalks and traffic calming measures in the areas immediately surrounding the schools, so the Central Broadway area would likely achieve this credit. In addition, all of these schools are relatively small in size, falling within the LEED-ND requirements for new schools. The Draft CCBDG do not address neighbourhood schools. 122  Appendix C. LEED-ND Assessment for Norquay and Central Broadway: GIB Green Infrastructure and Buildings (GIB) Assessment for Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre and Central Broadway  Notes: CB = Central Broadway (existing neighbourhood) CB with Redevelopment = Central Broadway with redevelopment according to existing policies and by- laws CB with Draft CCBDG = Central Broadway with redevelopment according to Draft C-3A Central Broadway Design Guidelines NVNC = Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre (existing neighbourhood) NVNC with Redevelopment = NVNC with redevelopment according to existing policies and by-laws NVNC with Plan = NVNC with redevelopment according to NVNC plan  Introduction City of Vancouver green building policies, bylaws, and guidelines correspond to some extent with the requirements covered in the Green Infrastructure and Buildings (GIB) section of LEED-ND.  This section of the rating system has been analyzed from the perspective of both the NVNC and Central Broadway planning areas. However, given that the policies, bylaws, and guidelines referenced generally apply City-wide, this analysis could be extended to apply to potential LEED-ND projects situated elsewhere within the City of Vancouver.  This summary is structured into two components for each prerequisite or credit covered: 5. Key question(s):  This is a simplified overview of the requirements outlined in the prerequisite or credit, worded as a question or a few questions. 6. Assessment: This assessment looks at the NVNC and Central Broadway planning areas as LEED-ND projects to determine if these neighbourhoods would generally meet the requirements of the LEED-ND program.  Prerequisites GIBp1 – Certified Green Building CB: Pass NVNC: Fail; NVNC with Redevelopment: Pass  Key question: Does the project include one certified green building (either LEED or through another green building rating system requiring review by independent, impartial, third-party certifying bodies)?  Assessment: This prerequisite requires that one whole building achieve LEED certification (or equivalent) as part of the project. Neither NVNC nor Central Broadway contain a certified green building.  However, Central Broadway currently has one completed building project that is attempting LEED certification; this project is nearing completion 123  of its LEED certification review and certification is anticipated. As certification is likely imminent, existing conditions within Central Broadway were deemed to contain one certified green building, for the purposes of this LEED-ND assessment. Central Broadway also contains one green building certified under LEED for Core and Shell, which includes some LEED for Commercial Interiors certified-space.  However, GIBp1 requires that 75% of a LEED for Core and Shell building be certified according to LEED for Commercial Interiors, so this Central Broadway building would not fully meet the GIBp1 requirements. NVNC contains building projects that have been registered as LEED projects with the CaGBC, but have not yet begun the actual certification review process. However, NVNC would be expected to meet this prerequisite in the near future, as these buildings certify. Additional LEED building certifications will likely occur in both the NVNC and Central Broadway planning areas in the near future, as the City of Vancouver’s rezoning policy now specifies that all building rezonings as of January 31, 2011, must achieve LEED Gold certification. In terms of the City in general, the majority of LEED-ND projects in the City of Vancouver could generally be expected to (be required to) pass this prerequisite, as LEED-ND projects tend to be larger, multiple- building projects that would likely be seeking a rezoning. The NVNC Plan does not address green building certifications. The Draft CCBDG refer to green building certifications in that they state development projects should perform “at a LEED NCTM equivalent level of Gold or Platinum” but do not require actual certification.  GIBp2 – Minimum Building Energy Efficiency CB: Fail; CB with Draft CCBDG: Pass NVNC: Fail  Key questions: For non-residential, mixed-use and multi-unit residential buildings (4 stories or more), does 90% of the project’s new building floor area demonstrate an average 10% improvement (5% for major renovations) over ASHRAE 90.1 2007? For single-family homes and multi-unit residential buildings 3 stories or fewer, do 90% of the buildings meet Energy Star or equivalent criteria (EnerGuide score of 80)?  Assessment: The City of Vancouver currently specifies all buildings regulated under Part Three of the Vancouver Building By-law (generally buildings four stories and above or over 600m2) must meet ASHRAE 90.1 2007, but does not require any specific improvement over this standard.  New buildings of this type could only be expected to meet the requirements of this prerequisite if they go through the rezoning process and are therefore required to achieve LEED Gold certification. The City of Vancouver does require all new one and two family dwellings to follow requirements that target Energuide 80, which does meet the prerequisite requirements for these building types.  In addition, the City is considering increasing this requirement to Energuide 81, likely early in 2012.  However, the City of Vancouver does not require other types of new multi-unit residential buildings (3-stories or fewer) to meet Energy Star or equivalent criteria, so no new residential buildings, other than one and two family dwellings, would likely meet the requirements of this 124  prerequisite.  Neither the NVNC nor Central Broadway areas would be likely to have 90% of new buildings comprised of one and two family dwellings.  This is particularly unrealistic for the Central Broadway area, which consists primarily of larger-scale development along a major arterial.  Therefore, as 90% of new buildings must meet the requirements of this prerequisite, neither NVNC nor Central Broadway would be expected to achieve this prerequisite. However, the City of Vancouver may adopt ASHRAE 90.1 2010 within the near future (possibly 2012).  This new version of the standard is generally considered to be approximately equivalent to a 15% improvement over ASHRAE 90.1 2007.  Generally speaking, this could be interpreted as a greater than 10% improvement over the 2007 version, meeting the requirements of this prerequisite. However, the two versions may have other substantive changes that, depending on building type and features, may make the calculation of an exact equivalency problematic. The NVNC Plan does not address building energy efficiency. The Draft CCBDG, however, direct new building projects to perform “at a LEED NCTM equivalent level of Gold or Platinum,” which would require minimum building energy efficiencies sufficient to meet the requirements of this LEED-ND prerequisite. The majority of new buildings constructed within the Central Broadway area are expected to follow these guidelines, as most projects will likely be seeking the conditional FSR allowance that requires adherence with the guidelines. Therefore, the majority of new building projects in Central Broadway would be expected to meet the requirements of this prerequisite.  GIBp3 – Minimum Building Water Efficiency CB: Fail; CB with Draft CCBDG: Pass NVNC: Fail  Key questions: For non-residential, mixed-use and multi-unit residential buildings (4 stories or more), do all new buildings and buildings undergoing major renovations have an indoor water usage of 20% less than in baseline buildings (see Tables 1 & 2 for efficiency baselines)? For single-family homes and multi-unit residential buildings 3 stories or fewer, do 90% of buildings use a combination of fixtures that would earn 3 points under LEED Canada for Homes 2009 Credit 3, Indoor Water Use?  Assessment: Although the Vancouver Building By-Law (VBBL) has greater water efficiency requirements than the BC Building Code, these are still only marginally better than the baseline water use specified under LEED.  Building to code in Vancouver would not ensure that a building achieves 20% reduction in water usage over this baseline, and therefore new construction in both the Central Broadway and NVNC areas would be expected to meet the requirements of this prerequisite.   However, the City is looking to expand on the current water efficiency requirements in the VBBL in the near future, adding requirements for low-flow fixtures in commercial and high-rise residential buildings. The NVNC Plan does not address building water efficiency. The Draft CCBDG, however, direct new building projects to perform “at a LEED NCTM equivalent level of Gold or Platinum,” which would require minimum building water efficiencies sufficient to meet the requirements of this LEED-ND prerequisite.  The majority of new 125  buildings constructed within the Central Broadway area are expected to follow these guidelines, as most projects will likely be seeking the conditional FSR allowance that requires adherence with the guidelines. Therefore, the majority of new building projects in Central Broadway would be expected to meet the requirements of this prerequisite.  GIBp4 – Construction Activity Pollution Prevention CB: Fail NVNC: Fail  Key question: Does the project have an erosion and sedimentation control plan for all new construction activities?  Assessment: The City of Vancouver requires an erosion and sedimentation control plan for large lot development (greater than 600m2), but not for small lot development.  Therefore, any new small lot developments would likely not meet the requirements of this prerequisite, so neither Central Broadway nor NVNC would be expected meet the requirements of this prerequisite as a whole, as both areas contain lots smaller than 600m2. Neither NVNC nor Central Broadway would be expected to meet GIBp4, as the City of Vancouver only requires an erosion and sedimentation control plan for large lot development (greater than 600m2). Neither the NVNC Plan nor the Draft CCBDG address construction activity pollution prevention.  Credits GIBc1 – Certified Green Buildings CB: 0/5; CB with Redevelopment: 3/5 NVNC: 0/5; NVNC with Redevelopment: 3/5  Key question: How many new whole buildings or major retrofits, within the project area, have LEED certification or equivalent?  Assessment: This credit applies to any newly constructed buildings or building retrofits that are part of the project, beyond the building that was counted towards achieving the first GIB Certified Green Building prerequisite.  Achieving points under GIBc1 would be difficult for large areas such as NVNC or Central Broadway, as points are awarded on a percentage of total new square footage basis (e.g. 10-20% square footage certified = 1 point), with up to 5 points possible for a project with greater than 50% of its new building square footage certified. Existing conditions in NVNC and Central Broadway would not be expected to contribute to any points under this credit, as certified green buildings comprise only a fraction of existing development in Central Broadway, and no certified buildings currently exist in NVNC. The NVNC Plan does not address green building certifications. The Draft CCBDG direct new building projects to perform “at a LEED NCTM equivalent level of Gold or Platinum,” but do not require actual certification. 126  However, both NVNC and Central Broadway would be expected to achieve some points under this credit as redevelopment occurs in these areas according to existing City of Vancouver policy, as the City’s current Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning requires all projects that undergo rezoning (that can reasonably fit within LEED criteria) to submit proof of application for LEED certification. In Central Broadway, rezonings constitute approximately one third of new building projects, which would correspond to approximately three out of five points for this credit. The proportion of new development in NVNC requiring rezoning is expected to be similar to Central Broadway.  GIBc2 – Building Energy Efficiency CB: 0/2 NVNC: 0/2  Key questions: For non-residential, mixed-use and multi-unit residential buildings (4 stories or more), does 90% of the project’s new building floor area demonstrate an average 18% improvement (14% for major renovations) over ASHRAE 90.1 2007 (for 1 point) or and average 26% improvement (22% for major renovations) over ASHRAE 90.1 2007 (for 2 points)? For single-family homes and multi-unit residential buildings 3 stories or fewer, do 90% of buildings achieve a HERS score of at least 75 (EnerGuide score of 82)?  Assessment: As per GIBp2, the City of Vancouver currently specifies all buildings regulated under Part Three of the Vancouver Building By-law (generally buildings four stories and above or over 600m2) must meet ASHRAE 90.1 2007, but does not require any specific improvement over this standard. The City of Vancouver currently requires all new one and two family dwellings to meet Energuide 80, but these buildings would need to achieve an EnerGuide score of 82 to meet the requirements of this credit. Therefore, existing conditions in NVNC and Central Broadway would not be expected to meet the requirements of GIBc2, “Building Energy Efficiency.” As redevelopment occurs in these areas, rezoning projects would be expected to achieve six points for energy efficiency according to LEED 2009 NC, as per the energy efficiency requirements of the City’s current Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning. However, as rezoning projects will likely constitute less than 90% of new development in NVNC and Central Broadway, and GIBc2 requires compliance of at least 90% of new development, this would not be sufficient to meet GIBc2 requirements. The Draft CCBDG do address aspects of energy efficiency, but not specify overall building energy efficiency requirements, beyond the basic requirement for projects to perform at a LEED NC Gold or Platinum level. This requirement would not be sufficient to meet energy efficiency levels necessary to achieve any GIBc2 points under LEED-ND.  GIBc3 – Building Water Efficiency CB: 0/1 NVNC: 0/1  127  Key questions: For non-residential, mixed-use and multi-unit residential buildings (4 stories or more), do all new buildings and buildings undergoing major renovations have an indoor water usage of 40% less than in baseline buildings (see Tables 1 & 2 for efficiency baselines)? For single-family homes and multi-unit residential buildings 3 stories or fewer, do 90% of buildings use a combination of fixtures that would earn 5 points under LEED Canada for Homes 2009 Credit 3, Indoor Water Use?  Assessment: As per GIBp3, building to code in Vancouver would not ensure that a building achieves a significant reduction in water usage over the baseline water usage specified under LEED. Existing conditions in NVNC and Central Broadway would not be expected to meet the requirements of GIBc3, “Building Water Efficiency.”  The City’s current Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning requires one LEED NC water efficiency point, which equates to a 30% reduction in water usage, as per LEED 2009 NC.  This does not correspond to a sufficient reduction in water usage to achieve one point under GIBc3, which requires a 40% reduction in water usage. In addition, the requirements for GIBc3 apply to all new development, whereas requirements in the City’s Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning would only apply to rezoning projects. The NVNC Plan does not address building water efficiency. The Draft CCBDG do address aspects of water efficiency, but do not specify overall building water efficiency requirements, beyond the basic requirement for projects to perform at a LEED NC Gold or Platinum level.  GIBc4 – Water Efficient Landscaping CB: 0/1 NVNC: 0/1  Key question: Has water consumption for outdoor landscape irrigation been reduced by 50% from the midsummer baseline case?  Assessment: There are a wide variety of strategies by which reductions may be achieved, including: plant species, plant density, microclimate factor, irrigation efficiency, use of captured rainwater, use of recycled wastewater, use of nonpotable water sources.  Projects with no new or existing landscaping irrigation automatically meet the credit requirements. However, both NVNC and Central Broadway planning areas will include some existing landscaping. Existing conditions in NVNC and Central Broadway would not be expected to meet the requirements of this credit. The City of Vancouver currently has no landscape irrigation water efficiency requirements, so landscaping associated with the majority of new construction in NVNC and Central Broadway would not be expected to achieve the requirements of this credit. However, the City of Vancouver does have Water Wise Landscape Guidelines. While these are not required to be adhered to, the majority of new construction requiring a rezoning would be expected to follow these guidelines.  In particular, major site rezonings, such as Little Mountain and East Fraserlands, would be expected to follow these guidelines, and Southeast False Creek has more specific 128  requirements. In addition, the Draft CCBDG state: “Applicants are encouraged to incorporate water infiltration and retention features, such as green roofs on concrete frame buildings, and natural rainwater management approaches such as permeable surfaces, swales, and water detention zones.” However, this is only encouraged, and would likely not be demanded of all rezoning projects and projects seeking conditional FSR allowances. Furthermore, this wording does not specifically refer to water efficiency in landscaping, but rather landscaping that allows for onsite rainwater management (which often, due to the nature of the plantings, does not require irrigation). The NVNC Plan only states: “Site Coverage and Impermeable Material Area Limits; Limits should be used to ensure effective storm-water management, however, limits will likely be higher than typical for a residential neighbourhood to accommodate the increased footprint of medium-density ground-oriented housing.” GIBc4 also specifies that both new and existing landscaping must meet these requirements, so even if all new development in NVNC and Central Broadway were in compliance, these areas would still not meet the requirements of this credit.  GIBc5 – Existing Building Reuse CB: 0/1 NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: Does the project include the reuse of 50% of one existing building, or the reuse of 20% of the total existing building stock? Are no historic buildings being demolished or cultural landscapes being altered as part of the project?  Assessment: NVNC and Central Broadway planning areas are quite large, so it is likely that each of these areas would include at least one project in the near future where 50% of the structure/envelope will be reused.  However, it is not possible to ensure that no historic buildings will be demolished or cultural landscapes altered.  Many buildings, monuments, streetscapes, and landscapes are listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register, but only some have legal designation.  While the Vancouver Heritage Commission does strive to protect all heritage resources listed on the Register, as per City Heritage Policy and Guidelines, there is no overarching protection provided by City of Vancouver bylaws for buildings or landscapes that are not legally designated. The NVNC Plan and the Draft CCBDG do not address existing building reuse.  GIBc6 – Historic Resource Preservation and Adaptive Use CB: 0/1 NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: Does at least one historic building or cultural landscape exist on the project site? Are no historic buildings being demolished or cultural landscapes being altered as part of the project? 129   Assessment: Both NVNC and Central Broadway contain at least one historic building or cultural landscape.  As per GIBc5, it is not possible to ensure that no historic buildings will be demolished or cultural landscapes altered.  Many buildings, monuments, streetscapes, and landscapes are listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register, but only some have legal designation.  While the Vancouver Heritage Commission does strive to protect all heritage resources listed on the Register, as per City Heritage Policy and Guidelines, there is no overarching protection provided by City of Vancouver bylaws for buildings or landscapes that are not legally designated. The NVNC Plan addresses historic preservation in that one of the fourteen Community Directions for the neighbourhood states, “Maintain a strong single-family residential character in key areas of the neighbourhood, including retaining heritage houses.” However, this is not sufficient to ensure that no historic resources in the neighbourhood will be demolished. The Draft CCBDG contain more comprehensive guidance, stating “Council policy is to give special attention the resources on the Vancouver Heritage Register. Whenever possible, resources on the Register are to be conserved.”  However, as with NVNC, this is not sufficient to ensure that no historic resources in the neighbourhood will be demolished, as per credit requirements, particularly as these guidelines only impact projects seeking a rezoning or approval of conditional density.  GIBc7 – Minimized Site Disturbance in Design and Construction CB: 0/1 NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: (Option 1) Is 100% of the development footprint and construction impact zone on previously developed land? OR (Option 2) For development on previously undeveloped land, is between 10-20% (depending on project density) of undeveloped land preserved and protected in perpetuity? AND Are sites surveyed for trees in good or excellent condition, and for invasive trees?  Are a minimum of 75% of noninvasive trees larger than 18in dbh, and a minimum of 25% of noninvasive trees larger than 12in dbh (6in dbh for coniferous) preserved?  Are these trees protected during construction?  Is there a longterm plan for the health of these trees, including protection from invasive vegetation?  Assessment: Any development that will occur in the Norquay and Central Broadway areas will be on previously developed land, so these neighbourhood planning areas would pass the first component of this credit via “Option 1”. The second component of this credit, the protection of existing trees, is largely covered under the City of Vancouver’s Protection of Trees By-law.  While the City’s protection requirements are not exactly the same as the LEED-ND requirements, they tend to be comparable in stringency.  For example, 130  while LEED-ND specifies percentages of trees 6in to 18in dbh to be retained, the City of Vancouver specifies that all trees over 20cm dbh (8in dbh) must be retained, or replaced if removed. However, two key differences should be highlighted.  First, the City of Vancouver by-law allows the removal of trees that are within the path of the building envelop or drainage system of the development project, so long as they are replaced 1:1. Although the size of the replacement tree is specified, it could be much smaller than the existing tree, meaning that the quantity of mature trees could be decreased significantly. Secondly, the Protection of Trees By-law does not address invasive species, which are specifically addressed in LEED-ND requirements.  The by-law does list appropriate replacement tree species, but does not list invasive species to avoid, and does not require any management or removal of invasives (LEED-ND specifies control of any invasive plants that may affect the health of the protected trees).  In addition, a few of the species on the list of recommended replacement species are in fact considered invasive in British Columbia.  These include: Norway Maple (Acer platanoides), European Birch (Betula pendula), English Holly (Ilex aquifolium), and Scotch Pine (Pinus sylvestris).  While some of these may not be considered major invasives in the Vancouver area (e.g. Scotch Pine), some are (English Holly in particular) and some are nuisance weedy species (Norway Maple). Listing known invasives such as English Holly on the recommended replacement tree list contradicts the intent of this credit, so NVNC and Central Broadway (and the City more broadly) would not be expected to achieve this credit. The NVNC Plan addresses tree preservation in that one of the fourteen Community Directions for the neighbourhood states: “New development should work to protect public views and mature trees.” The Draft CCBDG state: “Explore all options for retention of heritage listed resources, including trees.”  In addition, the new Draft Principles and Objectives for Street Trees in Central Broadway only includes one invasive species, Norway Maple, and this species is only a moderate upland invasive in BC, so this is an improvement over the existing general City of Vancouver’s Protection of Trees By-law. However, the wording in the NVNC plan and Draft CCBDG is not sufficient to ensure that the proportion of mature trees protected will be sufficient to meet GIBc7 standards, and neither policy document addresses the management of invasive species.  GIBc8 – Stormwater Management CB: 0/4 NVNC: 0/4  Key question: Does the project implement a stormwater management plan that retains onsite between 80% (1 point) and 95% (4 points) of rainfall?  Assessment: The City of Vancouver does not have any requirements regarding the retention of rainwater onsite.  While this is often specified during the rezoning process for major sites, there would likely be numerous development projects throughout the City that would not meet the lowest LEED-ND threshold for this credit (80% retention).  There are likely several development projects in the Central Broadway and NVNC areas that would accomplish sufficient onsite retention to achieve points under this credit, but this would 131  not be the norm for all the development in these neighbourhoods, nor would existing development comply, so this credit would not be expected to be achieved. With regards to site coverage and impermeable material area limits, the NVNC Plan states (pages 34, 38 and 40): “Limits should be used to ensure effective storm-water management, however, limits will likely be higher than typical for a residential neighbourhood to accommodate the increased footprint of medium-density ground-oriented housing.” The Draft CCBDG note that roofs should be designed to support water collection and detention, and that projects are “encouraged to incorporate water infiltration and retention features, such as green roofs on concrete frame buildings, and natural rainwater management approaches such as permeable surfaces, swales, and water detention zones.” While both policy documents refer to onsite stormwater management, neither place strict requirements on all new development, of a level comparable to the requirements of GIBc8.  GIBc9 – Heat Island Reduction CB: 0/1; CB with Draft CCBDG: 1/1 NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: (Option 1 – nonroof) Does 50% of the nonroof hardscape have: Shade provided via open structures (canopied walkways, vine pergolas, supports for solar panels) or via trees (within 10 years of landscape installation)? Paving materials with a solar reflectance index (SRI) of at least 29? An open-grid pavement system that is at least 50% pervious? (Option 2 – roof) Does 75% of the roof area have SRI values of at least 78 (low roof slope) or 29 (steep roof slope), or does 50% of the roof area have a vegetated roof?  Assessment: The City of Vancouver does not currently have any requirements in terms of green or “cool” (reflective) roofs, although policy in this respect is currently in the development process. Existing conditions in NVNC and Central Broadway would therefore not meet the requirements of this credit. However, the Draft CCBDG state that the design for roofs should support low albedo performance. As the majority of new buildings in the Central Broadway area are expected to follow these guidelines, Central Broadway would be expected to meet GIBc9 requirements in the future, as redevelopment occurs in accordance with the Draft CCBDG. The NVNC Plan does not address the topic of urban heat island reduction.  GIBc10 – Solar Orientation CB: 1/1 NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: 132  Do 75% or more or the blocks have one axis within +/- 15 degrees of geographical east- west, and the east-west lengths of these blocks are at least as long as the north-south? (Must also earn at least 2 points under NPDc2 – Compact Development.) OR Is 75% or more of the project’s building square footage (excluding existing buildings) oriented such that each qualifying building has at least one axis that is 1.5 times longer than the other, and the long axis is within +/- 15 degrees of geographical east-west?  Assessment: The majority of Vancouver’s existing block structure would allow projects to meet the requirements of this LEED-ND credit, as the long axis of Vancouver blocks tends to run within +/- 15 degrees of geographical east-west.  This is true for the Central Broadway area, allowing this planning area (existing conditions) to achieve this credit. However, there are portions of Vancouver where this is not the case, such as the Downtown peninsula and areas along Kingsway.  Kingsway runs diagonally through NVNC, and because of this there is an unusual mixture of block patterns throughout the neighbourhood.  Approximately 50% of the blocks’ long axes run north-south, approximately 25% run with the long axis 45 degrees off north-south, and another approximate 25% run with the long axis 45 degrees off east-west.  This means that NVNC cannot achieve the block pattern option for this credit.  Looking more closely at the individual buildings and existing property lines, it would also be extremely challenging for this neighbourhood to ever achieve the building by building approach to this credit, as it would be nearly impossible to orient the long axis of 75% of buildings within +/- 15 degrees of geographical east-west, giving the existing dimensions and orientation of properties.  As this second option is also so unlikely for NVNC, this planning area would not be expected to achieve this credit. The NVNC Plan does not address solar orientation. The Draft CCBDG specify that projects should “design each facade according to its orientation” in order to maximize passive and active solar energy opportunities. It is also worth noting that the City of Vancouver does have passive design guidelines, which can be drawn upon as part of the discretionary rezoning process, as well as passive design toolkits for new homes.  It would be expected that many new developments in the NVNC and Central Broadway neighbourhoods seeking rezonings would be required to implement some passive design elements.  GIBc11 – On-Site Renewable Energy Sources CB: 0/3 NVNC: 0/3  Key question: Does the project include on-site renewable energy generation (solar, wind, geothermal, small-scale hydroelectric, biomass) with production capacity equal to 5% of the project’s annual electrical and thermal energy cost (excluding existing buildings)?  Points: 5% = 1 point, 12.5% = 2 points, 20% = 3 points  Assessment: 133  Existing conditions in Central Broadway and NVNC would not meet the requirements of GIBc11, and it is not expected that there would be sufficient renewable energy production included within future development projects in these areas to meet credit requirements. The NVNC Plan does not address renewable energy production. The Draft CCBDG address solar strategies for energy production in that they specify that the design of roofs should support solar collection and that “solar technologies” could be embedded within window systems, but not to the extent that they require any renewable energy production within new building projects. The City of Vancouver currently has no requirements for renewable energy sources, and does not currently regulate the commissioning, maintenance, fuel choice or efficiency of heating, cooling and ventilation equipment in buildings. The City is in the process of developing a new HVAC by-law (completion target: 2012), which could potentially contain requirements related to renewable energy.  GIBc12 – District Heating and Cooling CB: 0/2 NVNC: 0/2  Key question: Does the project incorporate a district heating and/or cooling system (at least 2 buildings), such that at least 80% of the project’s heating/cooling consumption is provided by the district plant (excluding single family residential and existing buildings)?  Assessment: Existing conditions in Central Broadway and NVNC would not meet the requirements of this credit. Even after anticipated densification, there is not expected to be sufficient density in the NVNC area to make district energy viable, nor the optimal residential/commercial mix. The City conducted a study on the viability of district energy in the NVNC, which found it to “lack the energy density required to support an economically viable district energy system… even after anticipated densification.” While there are currently no specific policies or by-laws relating to district energy in the Central Broadway area, the City is actively encouraging and planning for district energy throughout Vancouver, and there are potential sites in the Central Broadway area, such as in the vicinity of Vancouver General Hospital. The laying of district energy infrastructure could potentially be undertaken during construction of anticipated new rapid transit infrastructure along Central Broadway. Both the NVNC Plan and the Draft CCBDG address district energy in that they require new buildings (i.e. rezoning projects within NVNC, and both conditional density approvals and rezoning projects within Central Broadway) to be designed to be easily connectable to a district energy system. However, GIBc12 requirements specify a minimum of 80% of the heating and cooling consumption of new development would need to be met by a district plant in order to achieve this credit. It is unlikely that either NVNC or Central Broadway would achieve this level of district energy uptake by redevelopment projects within the near future, and so are not expected to achieve this credit.  GIBc13 – Infrastructure Energy Efficiency 134  CB: 1/1 NVNC: 1/1  Key question: Is new infrastructure (traffic lights, street lights, water/wastewater pumps…) installed that has a minimum 15% energy reduction below an estimated baseline energy use for this infrastructure? (baseline calculated with the assumed use of lowest first-cost infrastructure items)  Assessment: Water pumps purchased by the City of Vancouver are at least 15% (generally more) more efficient than the lowest first cost option available.  With the assistance of the BC Hydro PowerSmart Program, the City has converted street lighting fixtures to high pressure sodium bulbs that are far more energy efficient. LED lighting has also been employed in City traffic signals, resulting in 80-90% less energy consumption.  In general, new street and traffic lights installed in the City of Vancouver are likely far more than 15% more efficient than the lowest first cost alternative. While there are no requirements for energy efficiency in new infrastructure installed by private developers, the significant work in this area by the City would likely be sufficient to meet the requirements in general for this credit, therefore existing conditions within Central Broadway and NVNC would be expected to meet the requirements of this credit. The NVNC Plan and the Draft CCBDG do not address this topic.  GIBc14 – Wastewater Management CB: 0/2 NVNC: 0/2  Key question: Does the project retain at least 25% or 50% (for 2 points) of the average annual wastewater generated (exclusive of existing buildings) on-site, and reuse that wastewater to replace potable water?  Assessment: Existing conditions in Central Broadway and NVNC would not meet the requirements of GIBc14, and it is not expected that there would be sufficient on-site wastewater management included within future development projects in these areas to meet the requirements of this credit. Neither the Draft CCBDG nor the NVNC Plan address wastewater management. The City of Vancouver does not have any policies or regulations that encourage reuse of wastewater to replace potable water.  GIBc15 – Recycled Content in Infrastructure CB: 0/1 NVNC: 0/1  Key question: 135  Is at least 50% of the materials for new infrastructure associated with the project (roads, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs, water tanks/vaults, base & subbase materials, stormwater/sanitary sewer/steam energy & water piping) at least 50% recycled content?  Assessment: The City of Vancouver generally recycles concrete, asphalt, base and subbase materials from City roads.  The City’s Engineering Services have worked to develop asphalt mixes that are 95% recycled content.  However, asphalt mixes with high recycled content are not always usable in all contexts; often mixes with high recycled content are just used for patching existing asphalt roads.  This is because this mix cannot be heated as much as mixes with less recycled content, due to the harmful emissions associated with heating the recycled asphalt (such emissions are regulated by Metro Vancouver).  A mix containing 20% recycled content (e.g. “Superpave”) is used more broadly for new roads, particularly new arterials.  In addition, there are no requirements for recycled content in roads, parking lots, curbs and sidewalks built by private developers.  Finally, the City does not generally reuse old pipes, as any pipes installed need to have the longest lifespan possible; piping installed is generally new and does not include recycled content. Existing conditions in Central Broadway and NVNC would not meet the requirements of this credit. While it is likely that new infrastructure (built according to existing City of Vancouver specifications) in the NVNC and Central Broadway areas would contain some recycled content, this would not be expected to meet the 50% threshold of this credit. Neither the Draft CCBDG nor the NVNC Plan address recycled content in infrastructure.  GIBc16 – Solid Waste Management Infrastructure CB: 0/1 NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: a. Does the project include at least one recycling/reuse station, or is the project in a jurisdiction that provides recycling services? b. Does the project include at least one drop-off point for hazardous wastes, or is the project in a jurisdiction that provides hazardous waste collection services? c. Does the project include at least one compost station, or is the project in a jurisdiction that provides composting services? d. Does the project include on every mixed-use or non-residential block, or at least every 800 feet, recycling containers adjacent to other receptacles, or incorporated into the design of the other receptacles? e. Was at least 50% of the project’s construction and demolition debris recycled/salvaged?  Assessment:  Item a: The City of Vancouver generally provides recycling services to all residential buildings. Therefore, technically, the NVNC and Central Broadway areas would meet the requirements of item a, as they fall within a jurisdiction that provides recycling services. 136  However, the City does not provide recycling services to other types of buildings, so although these areas meet the requirements of item a, there is a bit of a loophole in the requirements which, for the case of the City of Vancouver, overlooks recycling services for non-residential buildings.  However, the City does have good direction in this regard for CD-1 rezonings in Southeast False Creek: “Each CD-1 re-zoning is to include requirements regarding the separation, collection, and storage of garbage, organics, and recyclable materials; on-site organic composting for landscaping needs; and the management of construction and demolition waste to ensure a minimum of 50% landfill diversion.”  This Southeast False Creek policy also ties in with requirements for items c (composting) and e (waste diversion), and could be drawn upon to guide rezonings in other parts of Vancouver. Finally, the City also has a “Solid Waste Storage Facility Design Supplement for Developments and Redevelopments” which provides guidance on facilities for recycling storage/separation, although these are just guidelines and are not required to be adhered to by most new construction (only buildings going through the rezoning process are generally expected to follow these guidelines).  Item b: The City does not provide collection services for hazardous wastes, but there are provincial programs and numerous collection locations throughout the City.  Both NVNC and Central Broadway areas have at least one depot for specific types of hazardous waste, e.g. both have Encorp Pacific depots for electronics, and Central Broadway also has several LightRecycle depots for CFLs and fluorescent tubes.  Item c: As the City of Vancouver generally provides composting services to all single-family homes, both NVNC and Central Broadway are in a jurisdiction that provides composting services, and so technically meet the requirements of item c.  In the near future it is probable that the City will also be provided composting services for apartment buildings. However, while neighbourhoods across the City would generally meet these requirements, being located in a jurisdiction that provides composting services, it is important to note that no buildings other than single-family homes are currently receiving this service.  Item d: The City of Vancouver has pilot programs underway to provide newspaper recycling containers on city streets.  The City also provides garbage receptacles with special collection holsters for recyclable beverage containers on the side.  In the Central Broadway area, these types of recycling containers are generally located at least every 800 feet along much of Broadway Street.  However, there are a few stretches of street greater than 800 feet that do not have any type of receptacle for recycling, meaning the Central Broadway area would not currently meet the requirements of item d.  In the NVNC area, Kingsway Street has several of these types of receptacles, but they are not located sufficiently frequently along Kingsway to meet the requirements of item d.  Item e: 137  As the City of Vancouver does not currently have requirements regarding diversion of construction and demolition waste, neither Central Broadway nor NVNC would be expected to achieve item e.  However, the City is currently considering using deconstruction permits (potentially associated with reduced fees or wait times) as a tool to incentivize greater implementation of deconstruction in place of demolition, and encourage increased diversion of demolition waste.   The City is also considering requiring specific waste diversion rates for City-owned buildings.  The City already often pursues LEED certification on its own buildings, and in practice this often includes the achievement of the LEED-NC construction waste management credit (MRc2), which has the same 50% diversion rate requirement as this item e under LEED-ND. In summary, existing facilities and City programs would allow NVNC and Central Broadway to be likely to achieve several components of this credit.  However, four out of five of items a-e must be achieved in order to achieve the full credit. While City solid waste management programs (e.g. recycling, composting, and construction waste management programs) are expanding, it is unclear at this time whether they will expand sufficiently such that the NVNC and Central Broadway would be likely to meet credit requirements within the near future. Neither the NVNC Plan nor the Draft CCBDG address solid waste management.  GIBc17 – Light Pollution Reduction CB: 0/1 NVNC: 0/1  Key questions: Does the project have at least 50% of external luminaires with motion sensors? In shared areas, does exterior lighting have automatic controls to turn off lighting during nighttime when not required, and does it meet total exterior lighting power allowance requirements as per Table 3? Does lighting in shared areas, including roadway areas, meet lighting zone requirements as per Table 2?  Assessment: Existing conditions in Central Broadway and NVNC would not meet the requirements of this credit. Neither the Draft CCBDG nor the NVNC Plan address light pollution reduction. The City of Vancouver currently has no specific policies or bylaws relating to light pollution reduction, and so future projects throughout the city would not be expected to meet the requirements of this credit.  138  Appendix D. Universal Design Strategies from LEED-ND for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings  Multiunit buildings with four or more dwelling units. This category includes mixed-use buildings with dwelling units. Design a minimum of 20% of the dwelling units (and not less than one) to incorporate the universal design requirements stated below, or comply with Option 2. Choose at least one of the following three strategies for universal design:  a. Throughout the home, include at least five of the following universal design features to facilitate universal function, access, and user ability: o Easy-to-grip lever door handles. o Easy-to-grip cabinet and drawer loop handles. o Easy-to-grip locking mechanisms on doors and windows. o Easy-to-grip single-lever faucet handles. o Easy-touch rocker or hands-free switches. o Motion-detector lighting at entrance, in hallways and stairwells, and in closets, and motion-detector light switches in garages, utility spaces, and basements. o Large, high-contrast print for controls, signals, and the house or unit numbers. o A built-in shelf, bench, or table with knee space below, located outside the entry door with weather protection overhead, such as porch or stoop with roof, awning, or other overhead covering. o A minimum 32-inch clear door opening width for all doorways. o Tread at the entrance, on stairs, and other areas where slipping is common, with color contrast difference between stair treads and risers. o Interior floor surfaces (e.g., low-pile carpets, hard-surface flooring) that provide easy passage for a wheelchair or walker, with color contrast between floor surfaces and trim. No carpet is permitted in a kitchen, bathroom, or other wet areas of the dwelling unit.  OR  b. On the main floor of the home (or on another floor, if an elevator or stair lift is provided), provide a kitchen with hard-surface flooring, plumbing with single-lever controls, a 5-foot turning radius, and at least four of the following universal design features to facilitate universal function, access, and user-ability: o Variable-height (28- to 42-inch) or adjustable work surfaces, such as countertops, sinks, and/or cooktops. o Clear knee space under sink and cooktops (this requirement can be met by installing removable base cabinets or fold-back or self-storing doors), cooktops and ranges with front or side-mounted controls, and wall-mounted ovens at a height to accommodate a seated adult. o A toe kick area at the base of lower cabinets with a minimum height of 9 inches, and full- extension drawers and shelves in at least half (by volume) of the cabinets. o Contrasting color treatment between countertops, front edges, and floor. o Adjustable-height shelves in wall cabinets. o Glare-free task lighting to illuminate work areas without too much reflectivity.  OR  c. On the main floor of the building (or on another floor, if an elevator or stair lift is provided), 139  include all of the following:  In at least one accessible bedroom, o Size the room to accommodate a twin bed with a 5-foot turning radius around the bed. o Install a clothes closet with a 32-inch clear opening with adjustable-height closet rods and shelves.  In at least one full bathroom on the same floor as the bedroom, o Provide adequate maneuvering space with a 30-by-48-inch clear floor space at each fixture. o Center the toilet 18 inches from any side wall, cabinet, or tub, and allow a 3-foot clear space in front. o Install broad blocking in walls around toilet, tub, and/or shower for future placement and relocation of grab bars. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 8 0
Canada 5 0
City Views Downloads
Vancouver 5 0
Washington 4 0
Mountain View 2 0
Seattle 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items