HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-10 Council Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
May 10, 2022
9:00 a.m.
Virtual Online Meeting including Council Chambers
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and other items of interest to
Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision
to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more information.
The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge.
1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1. Minutes – April 26, 2022
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1. Draft Regional Growth Strategy Metro 2050 – Request for Acceptance
Staff report dated May 10, 2022 providing an update on how Council's comments
regarding the draft Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy were reflected in the revised
version and a recommendation that Council authorize the Corporate Officer to provide
a letter to Metro Vancouver accepting the proposed Metro 2050 Regional Growth
Strategy by the July 4, 2022 deadline.
4.2. Update of Community Amenity Contribution Policy 6.31
Staff report dated May 10, 2022 summarizing feedback and providing proposed
amendments to Council Policy 6.31 for consideration of Council endorsement,
including rate adjustments over the following two years and modifications to the
amenities eligible for funding through the Community Amenity Contribution Fund.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1. Electoral Boundaries Commission of British Columbia
Correspondence received May 2, 2022 from the Hon. Ron McKinnon, Member of
Parliament for Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam, regarding concerns for the proposed new
electoral boundaries presented by the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British
Columbia.
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
April 26, 2022
The Minutes of the City Council Meeting held on April 26, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. held virtually
and hosted in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge,
British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials
Mayor M. Morden
Councillor J. Dueck
Councillor C. Meadus
Councillor G. Robson
Councillor R. Svendsen
Councillor A. Yousef
ABSENT
Councillor K. Duncan
Appointed Staff
S. Hartman, Chief Administrative Officer
C. Carter, General Manager Planning & Development
Services
C. Crabtree, General Manager Corporate Services
S. Labonne, General Manager Parks, Recreation &
Culture
D. Pollock, General Manager Engineering Services
P. Hlavac-Winsor, Acting Corporate Officer, General
Counsel and Executive Director, Legislative Services
A. Nurvo, Deputy Corporate Officer
Other Staff as Required
T.Cotroneo, Manager of Community Engagement
K. Gowan, Planner
M. McMullen, Manager of Development & Environmental
Services
R. Ollenberger, Manager of Infrastructure Development
D. Pope, Director, Recreation & Community Engagement
F. Smith, Director of Engineering
T. Thompson, Director of Finance
L. Zosiak, Manager of Community Planning
These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
Note: Due to COVID Councillors Robson, Svendsen and Yousef participated virtually.
1.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
R/2022-WS-016
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda of the April 26, 2022 Council Workshop Meeting be approved as
circulated.
CARRIED
2.1
Council Workshop Minutes
April 26, 2022
Page 2 of 4
2.ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the March 29, 2022 Council Workshop Meeting
R/2022-WS-017
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of March 29, 2022 be adopted
as circulated.
CARRIED
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL - Nil
Note: Councillor Svendsen joined the meeting at 9:10 a.m.
4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Parks, Recreation and Culture Engagement Program
Stephen Slawuta of RC Strategies on Engagement Program reviewed the project
phases, timelines for completion and opportunities for public input, invited Council
feedback and answered questions from Council.
Note: Councillor Meadus left the meeting at 9:55 a.m. and rejoined at 9:56 a.m.
Note: Councillor Robson joined the meeting at 9:58 a.m.
4.2 Market Update and Secondary Suites Regulatory Options
Staff report dated April 26, 2022, providing a housing and rental market update
along with accessory dwelling unit regulatory options. Staff presented the
recommendations and answered questions from Council. Council reviewed each of
the below recommendations individually and provided feedback to staff on the
recommendations and priorities.
Note: Councillor Yousef left the meeting at 10:53 a.m. and retuned at 10:57 a.m.
Secondary Suite Recommendations:
1.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to remove the maximum and
minimum gross floor area requirement for secondary suites;
2.That staff develop ‘Alternate Compliance Methods for Alterations to Existing Buildings to
Add a Secondary Suite’ in the BC Building Code;
Council Workshop Minutes
April 26, 2022
Page 3 of 4
3.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit secondary suites in all
single-detached residential zones;
4.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit secondary suites in
ground-orientated duplexes and townhouses;
5.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw permit lock-off suites in apartments
and stacked townhouses;
Detached Garden Suite Recommendations:
6.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit secondary suites and
detached garden suites on the same lot in the Agricultural Land Reserve;
7.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to allow flexible siting of a detached
garden suite on a lot;
8.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to remove the minimum size
requirement for detached garden suites;
9.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit larger detached garden
suites in specific residential zones;
10.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit secondary suites and
detached garden suites on the same lot in all residential zones; and further
11.That staff develop a program, for council consideration, that would create “pre-
approved” building plan templates for detached garden suites.
R/2022-WS-018
It was moved and seconded
That staff hold in abeyance evictions from secondary suites during this review
process unless there is an obvious nuisance situation that staff are to enforce.
CARRIED
Note: The meeting recessed at 12:19 p.m. and reconvened at 12:33 p.m., with all
members of Council present except Councillors Svendsen and Duncan.
4.3 2022 Property Tax Rates Bylaw and 2022-2026 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw
T. Thompson, Director of Finance provided a detailed presentation on the 2022
Property Tax Rates Bylaw and 2022-2026 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw,
presented a new alternative 4, and compared alternatives 3 and 4. Staff
responded to questions from Council. Council unanimously provided direction to
bring Alternative 4 forward to the Regular Council meeting of May 3, 2022 for
consideration.
Council Workshop Minutes
April 26, 2022
Page 4 of 4
Note: Councillor Dueck left the meeting at 1:08 p.m. and returned at 1:09 p.m.
5.CORRESPONDENCE – Nil
6.BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL - Nil
7.MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
8.NOTICE OF CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING - Nil
9.ADJOURNMENT – 1:15 p.m.
_______________________________
M. Morden, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
P. Hlavac-Winsor, Acting Corporate Officer
l�W
TO:
FROM:
mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Michael Morden
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2022
MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Draft Regional Growth Strategy Metro 2050 -Request for Acceptance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On November 9, 2021, Council passed a resolution to send a list of formal comments to Metro
Vancouver regarding the draft Regional Growth Strategy, Metro 2050. Through inter-municipal and
inter-governmental collaboration, the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) addresses issues and topics
that all jurisdictions face and seeks to improve the livability of the region through collective action.
Prior to November 9, 2021, Council received overview presentations of the draft Regional Growth
Strategy on September 6 and September 27, 2021. The November 9, 2021 Council resolution is
included as Appendix A.
Formal comments from all member jurisdictions, First Nations, Provincial staff, other regional agencies
and organizations, and members of the public were compiled and a revised Metro 2050 was presented
to the Metro Vancouver Board in February 2022. On March 25, 2022 the Metro Vancouver Board
gave first and second reading to the proposed Regional Growth Strategy. Metro 2050 was presented
at a regional Public Hearing on April 20, 2022. Following the Public Hearing, on April 29, 2022 the
Metro Vancouver Board voted to refer Metro 2050 to affected Local Governments for acceptance.
Metro Vancouver has circulated the proposed Regional Growth Strategy (see Appendix B),
commencing a 60 day acceptance period for all member jurisdictions, which will conclude on
July 4, 2022. The purpose of this report is to:
•Report back on how Council's November 9, 2021 comments were reflected in the revised
Regional Growth Strategy;
•Provide a high-level summary of comment themes received from member jurisdictions; and
•Outline Maple Ridge's role in the remaining steps of the Regional Growth Strategy update.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to provide a letter to Metro Vancouver accepting the proposed
Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy by the July 4, 2022 deadline.
1.0 BACKGROUND:
The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) is a long-range, strategic land use plan for the Metro Vancouver
Regional District (Metro Vancouver), a federation of 21 municipalities, one Electoral Area and one
Treaty First Nation. One of Metro Vancouver's key roles is to collaboratively plan for and deliver
regional-scale services.
Doc#3049378 Page 1 of 10 4.1
Metro 2040
Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Regional Growth Strategy (Metro 2040) was adopted by
the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board (renamed to Metro Vancouver Regional District Board)
in 2011. Since its adoption, Metro 2040 has been an effective tool representing the regional
federation's collective vision for how to sustainably manage anticipated growth in the region. The
Regional Growth Strategy's policies are aimed at advancing livability through containing and
structuring growth to facilitate the development of complete, connected and resilient communities,
protect important lands (i.e. agricultural, industrial and employment and conservation and recreation
lands), and support the efficient provision of infrastructure, such as transit and utilities.
As Metro 2050 is an update to Metro 2040, and not an entirely new plan, the draft RGS aligns wen
with Maple Ridge Official Community Plan (OCP) policies.
In November 2021, the City of Maple Ridge provided formal comments to Metro Vancouver including
clarification on the definition and intent of some policies, specific policy wording changes to provide
greater flexibility in policy implementation, and statements on current and future land use planning,
which will have regional policy implications. Additional clarification was also requested regarding the
existing tree canopy cover and amount of protected environmental land, as they relate to the new
regional targets.
2.0 PLANNING ANALYSIS:
Many policy actions in the draft Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy are the same or very similar to
those that are working well in Metro 2040. The new or revised policy actions have been based on
learnings and research from over 10 years of implementation and on the endorsed recommendations
coming out of the Metro 2040 policy review process. It should be noted that Metro 2050 is an update
to Metro 2040 and not an entirely new RGS. As such, the existing text of Metro 2040 is being used as
the basis for the development of Metro 2050.
2.1 November 9. 2021 Comments Reflected in Final Draft
The key areas of feedback received from Council on September 27, 2021 are summarized as follows:
•Maple Ridge is seeking to 1 take its place' in the region, and wants to ensure that Metro 2050
provides flexibility in the realization of the City's future; and
•The creation of local jobs and a diversified tax base is a primary goal.
Maple Ridge has extensive rural, conservation and recreation, and agricultural land, which provide
significant contributions to the region's environmental and urban containment objectives. Maple
Ridge's comments include 22 policy wording changes to provide greater flexibility in policy
implementation, five advocacy statements, three clarification comments, two participation and
training requests as well as a list of forthcoming regional land use re-designations.
Metro Vancouver provided an itemized list of responses regarding policy wording changes (see
Appendix C), and provided general comments regarding clarification and participation comments for
further work after Regional Growth Strategy adoption. Metro Vancouver's response and Regional
Growth Strategy edits are included in bold below.
Doc#3049378 Page 2 of 10
Advocacy Comments:
A.CMR Comment: In response to policy 1.1.9 d), Maple Ridge requests Metro Vancouver
advocacy to NAV Canada to increase the aircraft height above 3000 ft for Practice Areas 185
and 188, and to consult with Maple Ridge should any further changes to Maple Ridge's air
space be considered.
MV Response: This suggestion is beyond the scope of Metro 2050, and has therefore not been
studied or discussed as part of the update.
B.CMR Comment: In response to policy 1.4.3 d), Maple Ridge requests that Metro Vancouver
advocate to the Agricultural Land Commission to review Agricultural Land Reserve legislation
to permit more intensive uses using technology.
MV Response: The use of technology, as it pertains to regional agricultural production
methods, is addressed in the Climate 2050 draft Agricultural Roadmap. Suggestions provided
here will be taken into consideration to further refine the draft Roadmap actions and strategic
directions.
C.CMR Comment: In response to policy 2.3.3, Maple Ridge requests further input and advocacy
from Metro Vancouver to ensure that the economic viability of Maple Ridge's agricultural lands
is addressed.
MV Response: Support ensuring that member jurisdictions are included in the preparation of
strategies and actions that address strengthening the agricultural viability of agricultural land.
For policy 2.3.3 after the words "in collaboration with" change the rest of the sentence to:
"member jurisdictions, the Province and the Agricultural Land Commission."
D.CMR Comment: In response to policy 2.3.12 c) v), Maple Ridge requests that Metro Vancouver
advocate to the ALC to undertake a review of producing and non-producing agricultural lands.
MV Response: This is beyond the scope of Metro 2050 and would require specific research
and assessment on how the terms 'producing' and 1nonproducing' are defined and how that
relates to existing permissive legislation for all agricultural lands in the province. It can be the
subject of a future research project if requested by member jurisdictions or the MV Board.
CMR Comment: In response to policy 5.2.6, Maple Ridge requests advocacy from Metro
Vancouver to CP Rail and CN Rail to address noise and vibration concerns caused by freight
movement through Maple Ridge.
MV Response: Policy 1.2.22 will be updated to reference "rail companies" alongside the port
and airport.
Doc#3049378 Page 3 of 10
Policy Edits Comments:
E.CMR Comment: Maple Ridge requests the following edit in underline for draft policy 1.2.24:
Member Jurisdictions will:
1.2.24 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
b)Include policies for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas that:
iv)consider reducing residential and commercial parking requirements in Urban
Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas and consider the use of
parking maximums;
viii)focus infrastructure and amenity investments (such as public works and civic
and recreation facilities) in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development
Areas, and at appropriate locations within Major Transit Growth Corridors and
other key neighbourhood locations:
MV Response: Not supportive of this proposed alternative language as it overly softens the
policy actions. However, support slightly revising 1.2.24 b) iv) to read "support modal shift by
establishing or maintaining reduced residential and commercial parking requirements in
Urban Centres and FTDAs and consider the use of parking maximums.11 F.CMR Comment: Maple Ridge requests the following edit in underline for draft policy 1.3.7:
Member Jurisdictions will:
1.3. 7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
g)consider providing design guidance for existing and new neighbourhoods to promote
social connections, universal accessibility, crime prevention through environmental
design, and inc/usivity while considering the impacts of these strategies on identified
marginalized members of the community.
MV Response: Direction to date has been for members to provide design guidance (of some
kind) for these considerations; not simply to consider providing that design guidance.
G.CMR Comment: Maple Ridge requests the following edit in underline for draft policy 2.1.10:
Member Jurisdictions will:
2.1.10 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
c)include policies that discourage the development and expansion of major commercial
and institutional land uses outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit
Development Areas and other key neighbourhood locations.
MV Response: The policy applies to 'major' commercial and institutional land uses. Smaller
such uses may be appropriate in local centres and can be pursued by member jurisdictions
based on local aspirations J priorities and context. Revisions will be made to clarify intent is to
limit expansion of commercial uses outside Urban Centres and FTDAs.
Revise to read "c) include policies that discourage the development and expansion of major
commercial uses outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas and that
discourage the development of institutional land uses outside of Urban Centres and Frequent
Transit Development Areas. n
Doc#3049378 Page 4 of 10
H.CMR Comment: Maple Ridge requests the following edit in underline for draft policy 2.2.9:
Member jurisdictions will:
2.2.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
c)include policies for Industrial lands that:
i)consistently define, support, and protect industrial uses in municipal plans
and bylaws, and discourage non-industrial uses:
iii)consider excluding uses that are not consistent with the intent of Industrial
lands and not supportive of industrial activities, such as medium and large
format retail uses, residential uses, and standalone office uses, other than
ancillary uses, where deemed necessary;
d)include policies for Employment lands that:
v)do not permit residential uses, except for an acce ssory caretaker unit or a
live-work use:
e)consider including policies to assist existing and new businesses in reducing their
greenhouse gas emissions, maximizing energy efficiency, and mitigating impacts on
ecosystems.
f)consider including oolicies that assist existing and new businesses to adapt to the
impacts of climate change and reduce their exposure to natural hazards risks, such
as those identified within the regional growth strategy (Table 5).
MV Response: Metro 2050 policies provides for an adequate amount of flexibility and local
application of regional objectives. Furthermore, there is no plan or intent to permit live-work
residential on Industrial lands.
I.CMR Comment: Maple Rid ge requests the following edit in underline for draft policy 3.1.9:
Member jurisdictions will:
3.1.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
Doc#3049378
b)consider including policies that support the protection and enhancement of lands
with a Conservation and Recreation land use designation, which may include the
following uses:
i)drinking water supply areas;
ii)environmental conservation areas;
iii)wildlife management areas and ecological resetves;
iv)forests;
v)wetlands (e.g. freshwater Jakes, ponds, bogs, fens, estuarine, marine,
freshwater, and intertidal ecosystems);
vi)riparian areas (i.e. the areas and vegetation surrounding wetlands, Jakes,
streams, and rivers);
vii)ecosystems not covered above that may be vulnerable to climate change
and natural hazard impacts, or that provide buffers to climate change
impacts or natural hazard impacts for communities; and
viii)uses within those lands that are appropriately located, scaled, and
consistent with the intent of the designation, including:
•major parks and outdoor recreation areas;
•education, research and training facilities, and associated uses that
se,ve consetvation and/or recreation users;
•commercial uses, tourism activities, and public, cultural, or community
amenities;
•limited agricultural use, primarily soil-based; and
Page 5 of 10
•land management activities needed to minimize vulnerability/risk to
climate-related impacts.
c)include policies that:
i)protect the integrity of lands with a Conservation and Recreation regional
land use designation from activities in adjacent areas by considering
wild/and interface planning, and considering measures such as physical
buffers or development permit requirements;
MV Response: No text has been balded in the comments received, so the requested change
is not clear. That being said, we believe Maple Ridge has requested the addition of the word
"consider" in a few locations: Under Action 3.1.9 b) Metro Vancouver does not agree with the
addition of 'consider' to this action, as this would mean members would not be required to
include policies regarding the protection of Con/Rec lands within Regional Context statements.
The phrase 'which may include the following' already provides flexibility in terms of what is
included with the Conservation and Recreation Regional Land Use Designation.
Under Action 3.1.9.c) i), the followin g change has been made: "c) include policies that: i)
protect the integrity of lands with a Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation
from activities In adjacent areas by considering wildland interface planning, and introducing
mea sures such as physical buffers or development permit requirements".
Under Action 3.1.9.c) i), the following change has been made: "c) include policies that: i)
protect the integrity of lands with a Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation
from activities in adjacent areas by considering wildland interface planning, and introducing
measures such as physical buffers or development permit requirements".
J.CMR Comment: Maple Ridge requests the following edit in underline for draft policy 4.2.7:
Member jurisdictions will:
4.2. 7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
c)encourage the use of regulatory tools that protect and preserve rental housing;
d)consider policies and actions that contribute to the following outcomes:
i)encourage increased supply of affordable rental housing in proximity to transit
and on publicly-owned land;
ii)encourage increased supply of market and below-market rental housing
through the renewal of aging purpose-built rental housing and prevention of
net rental unit loss;
iii)encourage protection and renewal of existing non-market rental housing;
iv)encourage mitigating impacts on renter households due to renovation or
redevelopment, and strengthened protections for tenants; and
MV Response: It is not clear what purpose these revisions (i.e. adding the verb 'encourage'
throughout) serve as they do not appear to significantly change the intent of the policies.
K.CMR Comment: Maple Ridge requests the following edit in underline for draft policy 3.2.7:
Member jurisdictions will:
3.2. 7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
Doc#3049378
a)consider identifying local ecosystem protection and tree canopy cover targets, and
create policy to contribute to the regional targets in Action 3.2.1;
Page 6 of 10
c)consider including policies that:
i)address ecosystem services in land use decision-making and land mana gement
practices;
MV Response: The tree canopy cover target is an aspirational regional target (i.e. average)
within the Urban Containment Boundary, and the intent is that all member jurisdictions will
aim to increase canopy cover in urban areas where people live, to reduce climate change
related heat extremes and heat-related health impacts, attenuate noise, and provide many
other critical ecosystem services. To increase tree canopy cover, member jurisdictions are
encouraged to set local targets, develop an urban forest management plan, plant climate
resilient tree species on public land, and provide support for residents to do so on private
lands. Like other member jurisdictions, Maple Ridge is already considering ecosystem services
(e.g. clean air, clean water, flood control, carbon storage, etc.) in its plans and policies. The
requested change to "consider including policies that address ecosystem services11 was not
requested by other signatories, so has not been made.
Clarification Comments:
L.CMR Comment: Request clarification on suggested strategies to meet new environmental
regional target, including strategies to maintain and increase tree canopy cover as the
community grows.
N.CMR Comment: Maple Ridge requests a definition of integrated housing to understand the
policy implication of policy 4.1.8 c) vii).
0.CMR Comment: Maple Ridge requests a definition of affordable rental housing to understand
the policy implication as it relates to the new housing target identified in policy 4.2. 7 a).
MV Response: Staff level conversations have occurred along the way through the Metro 2050
engagement process established at the Regional Planning Advisory Committee level and
through the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. Definitions, tools and techniques can be
developed through the Metro 2050 Implementation Guidelines process following bylaw
adoption. This process is still to come and will involve Regional Planning Advisory Committee
member input and review.
Participation and Training Comments:
P.CMR Comment: Maple Ridge requests additional tools, training and resources with respect to
climate change, emergency and natural hazard preparation, as it relates to land use planning
as outlined in Strategy 3.4 Member Jurisdiction Policies.
Q.CMR Comment: In response to policy 2.2.3, Maple Ridge requests participation in the
preparation of the Industrial Implementation Guidelines identified in Metro 2050.
MV Response: Staff level conversations have occurred along the way through the Metro 2050
engagement process established at the Regional Planning Advisory Committee level and
through the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. Definitions, tools and techniques can be
developed through the Metro 2050 Implementation Guidelines process following bylaw
adoption. This process is still to come and will involve Regional Planning Advisory Committee
member input and review.
Doc#3049378 Page 7 of 10
2.2 Member Jurisdiction Comment Themes
Following the November 26, 2021 member jurisdiction feedback deadline, Metro Vancouver noted
that hundreds of comments were received regarding Metro 2050. Overall, there was alignment and
support for Metro 2050 in the comments received by Metro Vancouver. The highest level of support,
from member jurisdictions, was for the policies in Goal 1 around containing and structuring growth
and Goal 4 around greater focus on affordable housing, particularly near transit. Some policy areas,
such as the Frequent Transit Development Area Sub-Types, regional affordable housing targets and
its implementation, and limited residential uses on lands with an Employment regional land use were
the subject of flagged areas of concern, and opposing perspectives. While some member jurisdictions
expressed that the regional housing target was too ambitious, others noted that it was not ambitious
enough. Similarly, some member jurisdictions felt that it was appropriate to expand residential uses
beyond 200m around rapid transit stations with an employment regional land use, while others
expressed that 200m was too permissive.
The District of North Vancouver and City of Coquitlam raised several concerns including the sufficiency
of engagement of the Metro 2050 process and the balance of local autonomy and the region's role in
land use planning. Metro Vancouver staff also noted that the City of Surrey did not provide comments
by the November 26, 2021 deadline.
Metro 2050 Revisions and Final Document
Substantive changes to the draft Regional Growth Strategy based on requests by multiple member
jurisdictions were:
•Removal of the Sub-Types within the Frequent Transit Development Areas;
•Additional content related to Indigenous perspectives and priorities;
•Refinement of the Regional Affordable Housing Targets; and
•Refinement of policy 2.2.9 d) vi) allowing limited residential uses on Employment lands.
The Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy put forward for acceptance represents three years of
research, policy analysis, and engagement. The document is one plan among a suite of interconnected
management plans developed around Metro Vancouver's Board Strategic Plan.
Regarding Maple Ridge's comments to Metro Vancouver in November 2021, some of the wording or
intended meaning are reflected in the final version. Metro Vancouver, through their comment
response, has identified that some feedback is outside of the scope of the Regional Growth Strategy,
while other feedback has the opportunity to be addressed through the implementation process and
Regional Context Statement preparation, rather than specific Regional Growth Strategy policy
language.
Through their comment response, Metro Vancouver staff have underscored the ability for the City to
take a 'made in Maple Ridge' approach in the realization of the City's future, including the creation of
local jobs and a diversified tax base. Going forward, the Regional Context Statement preparation will
indicate how Maple Ridge's objectives and policies align with the Regional Growth Strategy. On issues
raised that are outside the scope of the Regional Growth Strategy, Maple Ridge may choose to
continue to pursue advocacy measures independently.
Doc#3049378 Page 8 of 10
3.0 NEXTSTEPS:
4.0 ALTERNATIVE:
Doc#3049378
5.0 CONCLUSION:
On April 29, 2022 the Metro Vancouver Board voted to refer Metro 2050 to affected local governments
for acceptance. The member jurisdiction acceptance period is from May 4 -July 4, 2022. The purpose
of this report has been to:
•Report back on how Council's November 9, 2021 comments were reflected in the revised
Regional Growth Strategy;
•Provide a high-level summary of comment themes received from member jurisdictions; and
•Outline Maple Ridge's role in the remaining steps to the Regional Growth Strategy update.
It is recommended that the Corporate Officer be authorized to provide a letter to Metro Vancouver
accepting the proposed Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy by the July 4, 2022 deadline.
"Original signed by Lisa Zosiak" for
Prepared by: Amelia Bowden, M.Urb, MCIP, RPP
Planner 2
"Original signed by Mark McMullen" for
Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by Scott Hartman"
Concurrence: Scott Hartman
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A -November 9, 2021 Council Resolution
Appendix B -Link to Metro 2050 including maps
Appendix C -Link to Metro 2050 Issues Response Table
Doc#3049378 Page 10 of 10
APPENDIX A
City of Maple Ridge
I hereby certify this to be a true and correct copy of a resolution passed unanimously by the
City of Maple Ridge Council on November 9, 2021:
1.That staff prepare a formal letter to Metro Vancouver with the following comments on the
draft Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy:
Advocacy Comments:
A.In response to policy 1.1.9 d), Maple Ridge requests Metro Vancouver advocacy
to NAV Canada to increase the aircraft height above 3000 ft for Practice Areas
185 and 188, and to consult with Maple Ridge should any further changes to
Maple Ridge's air space be considered.
B.In response to policy 1.4.3 d), Maple Ridge requests that Metro Vancouver
advocate to the Agricultural Land Commission to review Agricultura_l Land
Reserve legislation to permit more intensive uses using technology.
C.In response to policy 2.3.3, Maple Ridge requests further input and advocacy
from Metro Vanco uver to ensure that the economic viability of Maple Ridge's
agricultural lands is addressed.
D.In response to policy 2.3.12 c) v), Maple Ridge requests that Metro Vancouver
advocate to the ALC to undertake a review of producing and non-producing
agricultural lands.
E.In response to policy 5.2.6, Maple Ridge requests advocacy from Metro
Vancouver to CP Rail and. CN Rail to address noise and vibration concerns
caused by freight movement through Maple Ridge.
Policy Edits Comments:
F.Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 1.2.24:
Member Jurisdictions will:
1.2.24 Adopt Regional' Context Statements that:
b)Include policies for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development
Areas that:
City of Maple Ridg_e
Iv) consider · reducing residential and commercial · parking
requirements ·in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit
·Development Areas and consider the use of parking maximums;
viii)focus infrastructure and amenity investments (such as ·public
works and civic and recreation facilities) in Urban Centres and
Frequent · Transit Development Areas, and at appropriate
locations within Major Transit Growth Corridors and other· key
neighbourhood locations;
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Canada • Tel: 604-463-5221 , Fax: 604-467-7.329
enquiries@mapleridge.ca • www.mapleridge.ca 100% Recycled Paper
Certified and Correct Resolution
November 9, 2021
Page 2
G.Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold ·for draft policy 1.3. 7:
Member Jurisdictions will:
1.3. 7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
g)consider providing design guidance for existing and new neighbourhoods
to promote social connections, universal accessibility, crime prevention
through environmental design, and. inclusivity while considering the
impacts of these strategies on identified marginalized members of the
community.
H.Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 2.1.10:
Member Jurisdictions will:
2.1.10 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
c)include policies that discourage the development and expansion of major
commercial and institutional land uses outside of Urban Centres and
Frequent Transit Development Areas and other key neighbourhood
locations.
I.Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 2.2.9:
Member jurisdictions will:
2.2.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
c)include policies for Industrial lands that:
i)consistently define, support, and protect industrial uses in municipal
plans and bylaws, and discourage non-industrial uses;
iii)consider excluding uses that are not consistent with the intent of
Industrial lands and not supportive of industrial activities, such as
medium and large format retail uses, . residential uses, and
standalone office uses, other than ancillary uses, wh�re deemed
necessary;
d)include policies for Employment lands that:
v)do not permit residential uses, except for an accessory caretaker unit
or a live-work use;
e)consider including policies to assist existing. and new businesses in
reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, maximizing energy efficiency,
and mitigating impacts on ecosystems.
f)consider including policies that assist existing and new businesses to
adapt to the impacts of climate change and reduce their exposure to
natural hazards risks, such as those identified within the regional growth
strategy (Table 5).
100% Recycled Paper
Certified and Correct Resolution
November 9, 2021
Page 3
J.Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 3.1.9:
Member jurisdictions will:
3.1.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
b)consider including policies that support the protection and enhancement
of lands with a Conservation and Recreation land use designation, which
may include the following uses:
i)drinking water supply areas;
ii)· environmental conservation areas;
iii)wildlife management areas and ecological reserves;
iv)forests;
v)wetlands (e.g. freshwater lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, estuarine, marine,
freshwater, and intertidal ecosystems);
vi)riparian areas (i.e. the areas and vegetation surrounding wetla nds,
lakes, streams, and rivers);
vii)ecosystems not covered above that may be vulnerable to climate
change and natural hazard impacts, or that provide buffers to climate
change impacts or natural hazard impacts for communities; and
viii)uses within thos� lands that are appropriately located, scaled, and
consistent with the intent of the designation, including:
•major parks and outdoor recreation areas;
•education, research and training facilities, and associated uses that
serve conservation and/or recreation users;•commercial uses, tourism activities, and public, cultural, or community
amenities;
•limited agricultural use, primarily soil-based; and
•land management activities needed to minimize vulnerability/risk to
climate-related impacts.
c)include policies that:
i)protect the integrity of lands with a Conservation and Recreation
regional land use designation from activities in adjacent areas by
considering wild/and interface planning, and considering measures
such as physical buffers or development permit requirements;
K.Maple Ridge requests the following edit.in bold for draft policy 4.2. 7:
Member jurisdictions Will:
4.2. 7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
c)encourage the use of regulatory tools that protect and preserve rental
housing;
d)consider policies and actions that contribute to the following outcomes:
i)encourage increased supply of affordable rental housing in proximity
to transit and on publicly-owned land;
100% Recycled Paper
Certified and Correct Resolution
November 9, 2021
Page4
ii)encourage increased supply of market and below-market rental
housing through the renewal of aging purpose-built rental housing
and prevention of net rental unit loss;
iii)encourage protection and renewal of existing non-market rental
housing;
iv)encourage mitigating impacts on renter households due to
renovation or redevelopment, and strengthened protections for
tenants; and
L.Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 3.2. 7:
Member jurisdictions will:
3.2. 7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that:
a)consider identifying local ecosystem protection and tree canopy cover
targets, and create policy to contribute to the regional targets in Action3.2.1;
c)consider including policies that:
i)address ecosystem services in land use decision-making and land
management pract.ices;
Clarification Comments:
M.Request clarification on suggested strategies to meet newenvironmental
regional target, including strategies to maintain and increase tree canopy cover
as the community grows.
N.Maple Ridge requests a·defin•ition of integrated housing to understand the policy
implication of policy 4.1.8 c) vii).
0.Maple Ridge requests a definition of affordable rental housing to understand the
policy implicati.on as it relates to the new·housing target identified in policy 4.2.
7 a).
Participation and Training Comments:
P.Maple Ridge requests additional tools, training and resources with respect to
climate change, emergency and natural hazard preparation, as it relates to land
use planning as outlined in Strategy 3.4 Member Jurisdiction Policies.
Q.In response to policy 2.2.3, Maple Ridge requests participation in the
preparation of the Industrial Implementation Guidelines identified in Metro2050.
Future RGS and RCS Amendment Comments:
R.Maple Ridge intends to. undertake the following Type 2 regional land use re
designations:
•Yennadon and Lougheed Transit Corridor Lands, to Employment
•Albion Industrial Park Expansion, Industrial Reserve, and Kanaka Business
Park, to Industrial
•Urban Containment Boundary alignment, as it relates to the above noted
redesignations
100% Recycled Paper
Certified and Correct Resolution
November 9, 2021
. Page 5
S.Maple Ridge intends to unde.rtake the following Type 3 regional land use re
designations:
•Albion Flats, to Employment within the Urban Containment Boundary
(subject to ALC approvals)
•Lougheed Transit Corridor, to Corridor Frequent Transit Development Area
•203 Street and Lougheed Highway and vicinity, to Station Frequent Transit
Development Area
2.That the letter with resolutions identify Maple Ridge's intent to take its place in the region,
support the creation of local jobs, and acknowledge the significant contribution the
community's agricultural, rural, and conservation land base provide to regional
environmental and climate change resiliency goals.
3.That the report titled "Draft Regional Growth Strategy Metro 2050 -Referral Comments11
dated November 9, 2021, be provided to Metro Vancouver.
Dated this 19th of November, 2021
Corporate Officer
100% Recycled Paper
1·�-
TO:
mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Michael Morden
and Members of Council
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2022
FILE NO: 13-6440-20
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Update of Community Amenity Contribution Policy 6.31
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Following Council direction at the November 9, 2021 Council Workshop meeting, staff received
feedback on the proposed amendments to Council Policy 6.31 -Community Amenity Contribution
Program from the Urban Development Institute and other industry representatives. This report
summarizes what was heard and presents amended Council Policy 6.31 for consideration of Council
endorsement.
The proposed amendments to Council Policy 6.31 include rate adjustments over the following two
years, as well as modifications to the amenities eligible for funding through the Community Amenity
Contribution Reserve Fund. The amended Council Policy 6.31 is included in Appendix A.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.That the proposed amendments to Policy 6.31-Community Amenity Contribution Program, as
attached to the staff report titled "Update of Community Amenity Contribution Policy 6.31"
dated May 10, 2022, be endorsed; and
2.That feedback be obtained regarding Section 2.3 of the staff report titled "Update of
Community Amenity Contribution Policy 6.31" dated May 10, 2022 and reflecting Council
comment, from the Urban Development Institute and other industry representatives, and
provided to Council in a future staff report.
1.0 BACKGROUND
In 2016, Council initiated a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program, which established
voluntary amenity contribution expectations for new rezonings in Maple Ridge. The CAC Program is
enacted by Council Policy 6.31 (adopted March 14, 2016; amended December 12, 2017). Policy 6.31
establishes the forms of development where the CAC Program applies, the contribution rate, and the
types of amenities the CAC's may fund.
Prior to the initial adoption of the City's CAC Program, the Province produced a guide called 'Community
Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits, and Housing Affordability' in
March 2014 (see link to the guide in Appendix B) to assist local governments in understanding the
legislative authority under which amenity contributions may be received. Implementation of a CAC
program has become a commonly utilized planning tool for many local governments and this is
recognized in the guide:
Doc # 3072122 Page 1 of 8 4.2
A change in use or an increase in density generally boosts the value of land, and
provides the possibility of a financial benefit to the land owner, developer or local
government. Increasingly, local governments and residents see this as a reasonable
opportunity to help fund community amenities.
The Provincial guide also provides some clear guidelines on how to draft and implement a municipal
CAC program, including that:
local governments understand the limits of their legislative authority, follow good
planning principles, be fair, clear and consistent, and understand the financial and
market impacts.
Since 2014, the Province's guide has been used to inform Council discussions and in drafting the
original Council Policy 6.31 and subsequent updates.
Noting Council comments in mid-2021, Urban Systems Consultants were engaged to conduct a CAC
rate review and possible update to the City's CAC program. The review took place in the fall of 2021
and the outcomes presented at the November 9, 2021 Council Workshop meeting, which included the
following conclusions and recommendations:
1.Supportable Target Rates:
•Case study financial analyses indicate that there is potential to increase target rates for
apartments, townhouses, and single-family.
•The option to negotiate CACs should be maintained in some cases, such as those locations
where certain amenities are desired, projects requiring major OCP amendments, and projects
beyond a certain scale (e.g. multiple phases).
2.Gradual and Predictable Target Rate Adjustments:
•Any increases to target CACs should be phased in gradually (e.g., over 2 to 3 years).
•CAC target rate policy should include provision for a periodic comprehensive review, plus a
more automated annual target rate adjustment mechanism.
•There should be a grace period when introducing new target rates. One option is in-stream
protection at current target rates for projects sitting at a certain point in the approvals process.
3.Target Rate Recommendations:
•Based on Urban System's research and analysis, they recommend the following target rate
adjustments:
Typology Current CAC Rate CAC Rate starting CAC Rate starting
mid-2022 mid-2023
Apartment $3,100 per unit $4,300 per unit $5,600 per unit
Townhouse $4,100 per unit $5,700 per unit $7,400 per unit
Single Family $5,100 per lot $7,100 per lot $9,200 per lot
4.Exemptions:
•The current policy provides a series of exemptions, including for rental housing secured
through a housing agreement.
•Urban Systems recommends maintaining this rental housing exemption to CACs, due to:
o Very limited evidence that market rental projects could support CAC contributions
under current market conditions.
Doc# 3072122 Page 2 of 8
o The recently completed Housing Needs Report identifying a need to incentivize the
construction of secure, purpose built rental product in Maple Ridge.
•All of the other exemptions listed in the current policy are reasonable and consistent with CAC
policies elsewhere.
5. Allocations and Alternate Approaches:
•CAC policy should be clear about where funds are being allocated and in what proportions.
•An alternate (or parallel) approach to arriving at reasonable CAC target rates other than land
lift is through the development of a costed basket of amenities that CACs are expected to fund,
in what proportions, and then converting that to target rates based on expected development
over a given period.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Community Amenity Contribution Program in Maple Ridge
The Community Amenity Contribution Program (CAC Program) is enacted by Council Policy 6.31
(adopted March 14, 2016; amended December 12, 2017). Policy 6.31 establishes the forms of
development for which the CAC Program applies; the contribution rate; and the types of amenities the
CAC's may fund.
In short, the CAC Program:
•applies city-wide, as it takes into account the use of amenities in one part of the city by a
resident in another;
•applies to all residential development, including mixed-use developments, with the following
exceptions:
o affordable and special needs housing (secured through a Housing Agreement);
o rental housing units (secured through a Housing Agreement and subject to a Section
219 covenant);
o the first dwelling unit of a duplex, triplex, fourplex or courtyard development;
o original lot of single-family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots;
o secondary suites and detached garden suite applications;
•sets out a contribution rate per single-family lot, per townhouse / other attached ground
oriented dwelling unit, and per apartment dwelling unit;
•can contribute the funds to any of the following eligible amenities:
o Affordable or special needs housing units;
o Acquisition of land for the provision of affordable or special needs housing, parks,
trails, and significant ecological features;
o Conservation of significant ecological features;
o Heritage conservation;
o Park or trail construction and/or maintenance;
o Civic facility;
o Public art;
•stipulates that a specific amenity, as opposed to a cash-in-lieu contribution, may be considered
by Council.
Doc # 3072122 Page 3 of 8
2.2 Proposed Amendments to Council Policy 6.31
i)Target Rate Adjustment
The Target Rate Adjustment is meant to address the current projections of growth, community plans,
and the anticipated impact of the growth on the need for amenities in various parts of the City. In order
to ensure Target Rates are appropriate and equitable for both the City and developers, it is
recommended that an evaluation of appropriate Target Rates, similar to the one undertaken for the
current update, be completed and reported on every two years. Language that will trigger a Target Rate
review every two years has been included in this update to Policy 6.31, which is attached as Appendix
A, for Council's consideration.
Recognizing the recommendation for gradual and predictable target rate adjustments, the following
rates are proposed to be incorporated into Policy 6.31, noting that rates are voluntary and negotiable
and initiated through the development application process:
Table 1: Proposed Target Rate Adjustment Schedule
Per CAC Rate until CAC Rate from August 1, 2022 CAC Rate beginning
July 31, 2022 to July 31, 2023 August 1, 2023
Apartment $3,100 per unit $4,300 per unit $5,600 per unit
Dwelling Unit
Townhouse or $4,100 per unit $5,700 per unit $7,400 per unit
other attached
ground
oriented
dwelling unit
Single-family $5,100 per lot $7,100 per lot $9,200 per lot
lot created
Note that the generally accepted practice is to exempt those in-stream applications, from the newly
approved policy, that have been presented at Public Hearing and have received third reading.
Specifically, applications that have received third reading by July 31, 2022 would contribute the
current CAC rate.
Alternatively, Council could make the target rate changes effective earlier on the date of adoption of
the policy.
ii)Development Industry Feedback on Target Rate Adjustments
The proposed target rate adjustments to Council Policy 6.31 were presented to the City of Maple Ridge
-Urban Development Institute -HAVAN Joint Meeting on November 26, 2021. Following the Joint
Meeting, a letter soliciting feedback was also sent to the Urban Development Institute. Overall, UDI
and the development industry were generally supportive of the proposed CAC target rates. UDI noted
that they are in-line with other municipalities like the Township of Langley and City of Coquitlam, and
the rates and structure remain relatively predictable, which is important in providing a sense of
certainty to builders when estimating project costs. UDI also encourages the City to continue to utilize
these funds for projects that will support new growth across the city.
Doc# 3072122 Page 4 of 8
2.3 Proposed Next Steps
Noting that Council directs the allocation of the CAC fees, through the business and financial planning
process, towards Council's preferred amenities, Community Amenity Contributions received can
currently contribute to any of the capital costs of the following eligible amenities:
o Affordable or special needs housing units;
o Acquisition of land for the provision of affordable or special needs housing, parks,
trails, and significant ecological features;
o Conservation of significant ecological features;
o Heritage conservation;
o Park or trail construction and/or maintenance;
o Civic facility;
o Public art.
Based on recent Council comments, Legal & Legislative Services has reviewed Council Policy 6.31 and
a draft list of potential additions to the Policy, under eligible activities, are provided below for Council's
input.
o Cultural Facility, including but not limited to performing art space, art gallery, cinema,
artisan workspace or studio;
o Community Safety Facility, including but not limited to firehall, Community Safety
Officer space;
o Undergrounding of Utilities;
o Libraries;
o Rapid transit, mass transit, cycling or pedestrian infrastructure;
o Publicly available Internet of Things (loT), WiFi or other electronic communication
infrastructure;
o Sports & Recreational Facilities;
o Park Improvements;
o Plazas;
o Underground Public Parking;
o Childcare Facility;
o Retail Facilities featuring local artisans and craftsmen for a minimum of 5 years from
date of construction;
o Green infrastructure, including but not limited to generation and storage of energy
from renewable sources that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or for public Electric
Vehicle (EV) charging;
o Publicly accessible rooftop gardens covering 75% of the building's top floor plate
with living vegetation;
o Community Gardens;
o Rainwater harvesting.
Should Council direct to proceed with next steps on adding any or all of the items listed above, it is
proposed that staff re-engage with UDI, HAVAN and other industry representatives for their feedback
on the possible additions. Once feedback from the industry representatives is received by staff a
follow-up report will be brought to Council for consideration and approval of additions to the Policy
6.31 amenities list.
Doc# 3072122 Page 5 of 8
CAC's are a commonly used tool for development to help pay for community amenities that will support
community growth. Utilizing CACs aligns with the focus area of Growth in the Strategic Plan and helps
deliver on the philosophy that growth should pay for the public amenities that help to make growing
communities more desirable places to live. In addition to the proposed increases to the Target Rate
Adjustment for the currently anticipated impacts of growth up to 2023, language has been included in
the Policy update, attached as Appendix A, which is intended to trigger a Policy 6.13 Target Rate review
every two years. The built-in regular review will ensure continued alignment with the amenity needs of
the population and amendments to community plans into the future.
The City of Maple Ridge Official Community Plan stipulates the use of Community Amenity
Contributions as a key strategy for the creation and funding of new community amenities. Note that
Council has at its discretion the option of revising Council Policy 6.31 at any time as it does not require
four readings and a public hearing for a bylaw.
The Planning and Finance Departments continue to collaborate on amenity policy and zoning matters
such as CAC and density bonus zoning to help foster more opportunities for the provision of community
amenities in Maple Ridge.
Previously, Council established a City-Wide Community Amenity Contribution Reserve Fund to receive
contributions from the City's CAC program, which is consistent with the requirements under the Local
Government Act. The collection of amenity contributions is tied to development and occurs at final
reading.
A summary of the funds collected and authorized draws to the end of February, 2022 is provided on
the following page.
Doc # 3072122 Page 6 of 8
($)
2015
2016 229,500
2017 958,200
2018 3,605,300
2019 1,852,500
2020 2,021,300
2021 1,824,100
2022 5,100
Total Collections 10,496,000
Interest 238,203
10,734,203
Albion Community Centre (2,600,000)
Additional Sheet of Ice (1,500,000)
Telosky Turf and Fieldhouse (Actual) (2,232,678)
(6,332,678)
4,401,526
At time of writing, the City has a number of development application files in stream, Recognizing that
not all development applications may proceed (i.e some are denied, some never complete), staff
conducted high level estimates of what the potential CAC contributions could look like from the
applications in-stream today.
Looking solely at the rezoning files, the approximately one hundred residential development
applications would contribute, at the current rates, approximately $12 million in CAC fees over time.
Should the CAC fees be updated according to the proposed fee increases noted above, that CAC
contributions could range between $16 to $21 million from the same number of residential
development application files over time.
Doc # 3072122 Page 7 of 8
Following Council direction at the November 9, 2021 Council Workshop meeting, staff obtained
feedback on the proposed amendments to Council Policy 6.31 -Community Amenity Contribution
Program from the Urban Development Institute and other industry representatives. This report
summarizes what was heard, as well as presenting amended Council Policy 6.31 for consideration of
Council endorsement.
The proposed amendments to Council Policy 6.31 include rate adjustments over the following two
years, as well as modifications to the amenities eligible for funding through the Community Amenity
Contribution Reserve Fund. The amended Council Policy 6.31 is included in Appendix A.
"Original signed by Lisa Zosiak" for
"Original signed by Mark McMullen" for
"Original signed by Trevor Thompson"
"Original signed by David Pollock" for
"Original signed by Scott Hartman"
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A: Proposed amendments to Council Policy 6.31
Appendix B: Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits, and Housing
Affordability (March 2014) community amenity contributions guide.pdf /gov.be.ca)
Page 8 of 8
APPENDIX A
mapleridge.ca POLICY MANUAL
Policy No.: 6.31
Title: Community Amenity Contribution Program
Supersedes: December 2017
Authority: Legislative � Operational D Effective Date:
Approval: Council� CMT □ General Review Date: Manager □
Policy Statement:
The City of Maple Ridge is committed to providing a variety of amenities throughout the municipality,
including the provision of aff ordable and special needs housing, in a financially sustainable manner.
Purpose:
To provide direction on the implementation of a city-wide community amenity contribution (CAC)
program, including the process to determine the contribution amount.
Definitions: •"Community Amenity" means any public amenity that provides a benefit to the residents
of the City or a specific neighbourhood as the result of increased residential density.
The Community Amenity Contribution Program (CAC Program) is comprised of the following
components:
1.The CAC Program will apply city-wide.
2.The starting point for each CAC will be based on a contribution rate in Table 1, in addition
to consideration of unique circumstances of specific neighborhoods and developments that give
rise to specific amenity use, and thereby warrant departure from the Target Rate Adjustment to
capture the proportional impact of the new development:
Table 1 -Target Rate Adjustment Schedule
Per CAC Rate until CAC Rate from August 1, 2022 CAC Rate beginning
July 31, 2022 to July 31, 2023 August 1, 2023
Apartment $3,100 per unit $4,300 per unit $5,600 per unit
Dwelling Unit
Townhouse or $4,100 per unit $5,700 per unit $7,400 per unit
other attached
ground
oriented
dwelling unit
Single family $5,100 per lot $7,100 per lot $9,200 per lot
lot created
Page 1 of 3 Policy 6.31
3.The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings, including those
that are included in a mixed-use development (such as commercial and residential) with
the following exceptions:
a)Affordable and special needs housing that are secured through a Housing
Agreement as established in Section 483 of the Local Government Act;
b)Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established
under Section 483 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant
enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act;
c)Single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots -only the
original lot is exempt, after which the CAC program applies to each additional lot;
d)Accessory dwelling units, such as a secondary suite or detached garden suite;
e)Duplex, triplex and fourplex dwelling units on a single property, where only one
building is being constructed -only the first dwelling unit is exempt, after which the
CAC program applies to each additional dwelling unit; and
f)Courtyard dwelling units, located on a single property -only the first dwelling unit
is exempt, after which the CAC program applies to each additional dwelling unit.
4.The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply,
in addition to the city-wide CAC Program.
a)For developments that take advantage of the density bonus provisions included in
the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the Albion Area Plan, the amenity contribution
rate will be:
•$5100 per single family lot created;
•$4100 per townhouse or other attached ground-oriented dwelling unit;
• $3100 per apartment dwelling unit;
in addition to the $3100 density bonus rate.
b)For developments that do not take advantage of the density bonus provisions
included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, the CAC rate will be the rate established
in Section 2 of this policy.
5.The Official Community Plan may also establish additional or alternative community
amenity contribution policies, guidelines and density bonus provisions for each Area Plan.
6.Development applications that are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of the
CAC Program Council Policy, will:
a)be subject to the provisions of this Policy unless the applicable Official Community
Plan or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw has received Third Reading; OR
b)be subject to the provisions of this Policy if a condition for the Policy to apply was
included in the first or second reading report of the applicable Official Community
Plan or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw.
7.All development applications that are seeking an extension under Development
Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 (as amended), may be subject to the city-wide
community amenity contribution program at the discretion of Council.
8.Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may
benefit from the community amenity contributions.
9.Community Amenity Contribution funds received will contribute to any of the following
eligible amenities:
a)Civic facility;
Page 2 of 3 Policy 6.31
b)Public art;
c)Acquisition of land for the provision of:
o Affordable or special needs housing;
o Parks
o Trails
o Significant ecological features,
d)Park or trail construction and/or maintenance;
e)Affordable or special needs housing units;
f)Heritage conservation; or
g)Conservation of significant ecological features.
10.The provision of a specific amenity, rather than a cash-in-lieu contribution may also be
considered by Maple Ridge Council. If Council determines that the provision of an amenity
is more desirable, the following list is to be used as a general guide for determining the
type of community amenity:
a)Public art;
b)Heritage conservation;
c) Land for the provision of:
o Affordable or special needs housing;
o Parks
o Trails
o Significant ecological features,
d)Affordable or special needs housing units; or
e)Park or trail construction or improvements.
Page 3 of 3 Policy 6.31
APPENDIX B
Acknowledgements
This guide was drafted in consultation with numerous local governments, the development and building
sectors, and the legal and academic communities. The Ministry would like to thank everyone who
contributed to the development of this guide.
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
Contact the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development for answers to questions about the
material contained in this guide or other aspects of community amenity contributions.
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
Local Government Division
Intergovernmental Relations and Planning
PO Box 9841 Stn. Prov. Govt.
Victoria, B.C. V8W 9T2
Phone: 250 387-4037
Website: www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/contacts/department.htm
Disclaimer
The information contained in this guide is provided as general reference and, while all attempts have
been made to ensure the accuracy of the material, the guide is not a substitute for provincial legislation,
and it does not constitute legal advice.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing
Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability
Table of Contents
Guide Purpose and Summary
Summary of Recommended Practices for CACs
Part 1: Background on CACs and the Rezoning Process
Definitions
Legislative Context
Part 1 -Summary
Part 2: Staying on a Solid Legal Footing
Legal Risks
Imposing Unauthorized Fees, Charges and Taxes
Not Keeping an Open Mind
Subjecting Building and Subdivision Approvals to CACs
Part 2 -Summary
Part 3: Recommended Practices for CACs
Official Community Plans and Zoning Bylaws
Planning for CACs
Applying the Principles of Nexus and Proportionality
Being Transparent About CACs
Determining CAC Amounts
Affordable Housing
Using CACs for Capital Costs Only
Part 3 -Summary
Part 4: CACs and Housing Affordability
Progress on Housing Affordability Requires a Focus on Supply
Who Ultimately Pays for CACs?
Are CACs Likely to Reduce Developer Profit?
Are CACs Likely to Reduce Land Owner Profit?
Land Owner Incentive to Sell is an Important Consideration
Part 4-Summary
Part 5: Choosing an Approach to Obtaining Amenities
Density Bonus Zoning
Setting Preferred CAC Targets for Properties Being Rezoned
Negotiating CACs Based on Property Value "Lift"
Choosing a Strategy for Obtaining Amenities
Part 5-Summary
Summary
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
14
14
14
15
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
19
20
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
APPENDIX: Illustration of Policies for a Target Approach to CACs
A.General Policies on Target Contributions for Land Being Rezoned
B.City-Wide and Neighbourhood Amenities
C.Targets for Cost Sharing of City-Wide Amenities
D.Targets for Cost Sharing of McKay Valley Amenities
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
Ill
22
22
23
23
24
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Guide Purpose and Summary
The purpose of this guide is to help local governments understand the
risks, challenges and recommended practices related to obtaining
community amenity contributions (CACs). The guide also describes the
relationship between CACs and housing affordability, and encourages
practices that do not inadvertently cause housing prices to increase.
Density bonus zoning, authorized under Local Government Act (LGA)
s.904, is another approach used by local governments to obtain
community amenities.
While CACs are the focus of this guide, most recommended principles and practices apply equally
to CAC and density bonus approaches 1. Therefore, throughout the document and where helpful to
the reader, the guide highlights key differences and commonalities between the two approaches.
The guide also emphasizes the importance of density bonus zoning as a preferred approach for
obtaining community amenities. 2
The guide is intended primarily for local governments.3 The content of the guide may also benefit
others involved in the land use planning and development process including developers, builders,
real estate professionals and planning consultants.
The guide contains the following sections:
•Part 1: Background on CACs and the Rezoning Process
•Part 2: Staying on a Solid Legal Footing -helps local governments to understand the limits
of their legal authority to impose fees and charges and obtain CACs.
•Part 3: Recommended Practices for CACs -outlines the challenges associated with
obtaining CACs and recommends practices that align with good planning principles.
•Part 4: CACs and Housing Affordability-encourages local governments to consider who
ultimately pays for amenity contributions and encourages approaches that are most
supportive of housing affordability.
•Part 5: Choosing an Approach to Obtaining Amenities -addresses advantages and risks
associated with typical approaches currently used, and provides advice on choosing a
strategy.
•Appendix: Illustration of Policies for a Target Approach to CACs -provides an example of
the "target approach" to CACs including provisions that could be customized for inclusion
in official community plans (OCPs) or adopted as policies to guide negotiation of CACs.
A short version of this guide is available here:
http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov relations/library/CAC Guide Short.pdf
1 Where a site specific rezoning includes a density bonus on condition of providing amenities, it is essentially a
rezoning with CACs. 2 Developers make contributions in various circumstances, such as housing agreements, phased development
agreements, or heritage revitalization agreements. This guide only addresses contributions to the extent that they
are related to zoning. 3 While the City of Vancouver is unique, in that it operates under the Vancouver Charter, the issues and guidance in
this document are nevertheless applicable to the City.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
1 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Summary of Recommended Practices for CACs
Avoid Legal Risk-Negotiate, do not impose; avoid perception that zoning is for sale.
Plan Ahead-Identify potential amenities, ideally by neighbourhood.
Seek Modest Contributions -Avoid impacts on housing afford ability.
Apply Development Cost Charge (DCC) Principles-e.g. link contributions to impacts of new
development; try to ensure each developer pays a comparable, fair share.
Engage the Development Community -Be aware of how CACs could impact projects and their
viability
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Part 1: Background on CACs and the Rezoning Process
Local governments face many challenges in managing growth. They need to ensure that new
development is acceptable to the community, respects the community plan and that infrastructure,
amenities and services are in place to keep pace with growth. Provincial legislation allows local
governments to ensure that developers install services as part of their development, both on the
site itself and immediately adjacent.
Legislation also allows local governments to impose development cost charges (DCCs) for certain
off-site services, namely, water, sewer, drainage and roads and park land.4 Increasingly, local
governments are relying on the rezoning process to secure affordable housing, and contributions
towards recreation facilities and other community amenities that cannot be funded through DCCs.
LGA section 904 allows zoning bylaws to include the option of additional (bonus) density subject to
specific conditions, which can include providing amenities. This provision in the LGA has been in
place since 1995.
As an additional approach, local governments sometimes negotiate CACs from those seeking a
change in zoning. A change in use or an increase in density generally boosts the value of land, and
provides the possibility of a financial benefit to the land owner, developer or local government.
Increasingly, local governments and residents see this as a reasonable opportunity to help fund
community amenities.
In considering CACs, it is important that local governments understand the limits of their legislative
authority, follow good planning principles, be fair, clear and consistent, and understand the
financial and market impacts.
Housing affordability is a particular challenge for many B.C. communities. This guide describes how
CACs, if not handled carefully, can potentially decrease the supply of new housing and lead to
increases in housing prices. It is important that local governments recognize the relationship
between CACs and housing affordability and make efforts to balance the opportunity to obtain
public benefits, such as community amenities, with the goal of helping families to secure affordable
housing.
Definitions
"Affordable housing" is housing that does not exceed 30% of household income. This is the
general guideline for social and subsidized housing in B.C. and is commonly the percentage lenders
use to determine what a family can afford to borrow when purchasing a home.
"Affordable market housing" is privately-owned housing that is owned or rented at prices set by
the market and affordable to low-middle income earners.
"Community Amenities" contribute to the attractiveness of a project or a neighbourhood, and
typically include aesthetic features, public spaces, and facilities to meet a range of social, cultural,
recreational, and infrastructure needs of the community.
4 The City of Vancouver has comparable authority, under the Vancouver Charter, for "development cost levies".
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
3 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
"Community Amenity Contributions (CACs)" are amenity contributions agreed to by the
applicant/developer and local government as part of a rezoning process initiated by the
applicant/developer. CACs can take several forms including community amenities, affordable
housing and financial contributions towards infrastructure that cannot be obtained through DCCs,
such as recreation facilities or a fire hall. The agreed-to contribution would be obtained by the local
government if, and when, the local government decides to adopt the rezoning bylaw.
"Density Bonus Zoning", as authorized under LGA s. 904, is intended to provide options for the
developer to build either to the "base" density or to a higher level of density, if they provide certain
amenities or affordable housing, or meet other specified conditions. The developer, by right,
always has the option of developing at the base level of density, but usually has an incentive to
consider higher densities.
Legislative Context
Provincial legislation enables local government to require services, collect fees and/or obtain land
from new development to address certain impacts of new growth. The following sections of the
LGA enable local governments to require new development to provide:
•DCCs for off-site services (s. 933);
•money towards acquiring school sites (s.937.3);
•on-site services related to subdivision (s.938);
•excess capacity or extended services (s.939);
•up to 5% of land being subdivided for park land, or cash-in-lieu (s.941); and,
•land for roadways (s.945).
Not all impacts of development are covered by these legislative provisions. Increasingly, local
governments are taking the position that new development should not be a burden on local
taxpayers and are supplementing the above requirements with CACs. For example, local
governments commonly impose DCCs to pay for allowable items such as water and sewer mains
then seek contributions towards facilities not covered by DCCs, such as expansion of a fire hall,
recreation centre or library.
Whether new development is on "green field" sites or accommodated by the redevelopment of
existing areas, it often brings resistance. Existing residents are often concerned about negative
impacts of new development, such as the increased number of cars parked on streets or
obstructed views. Community amenity contributions used, for example, to help fund upgraded
parks, street art and community centres, have helped existing residents see tangible benefits from
new development.
Local governments also report a trend in the demand for amenities that relate to a change in urban
form. For example, where a single family neighbourhood transitions towards higher density,
backyards are reduced in size or eliminated and residents' expectations for quality outdoor public
spaces and other amenities increases. In response, local governments may turn to CACs to help
pay for these community amenities.
With some of the most expensive housing in North America occurring in British Columbia, local
governments are also using CACs and density bonus zoning to help meet housing needs that the
housing market is failing to deliver on its own.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
4 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Examples of affordable and special needs housing types that have been provided include price
controlled, limited equity market housing units; housing for people with special needs; and
guaranteed or time-limited rental units with rent controlled mechanism5 •
Part 1 -Summary
•Local governments face many challenges in managing growth.
•Legislation allows local governments to impose DCCs for certain off-site services,
namely, water, sewer, drainage and roads and park land.
•LGA s. 904 allows zoning bylaws to include the option of additional (bonus) density
subject to specific conditions, which can include providing amenities.
•As an additional approach local governments are increasingly negotiating CACs
from applicants/developers seeking a change in zoning.
•It is important that local governments recognize the relationship between CACs
and housing affordability and make efforts to balance the opportunity to obtain
community amenities with the goal of helping families to secure affordable
housing.
s http://wcel.org/density-bonus
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Part 2: Staying on a Solid Legal Footing
A common mis perception is that local governments have authority to require CACs as a condition
of rezoning. In fact, there is no authority to impose such conditions on a rezoning applicant; any
contributions must either be at the initiative of the applicant/developer or emerge from rezoning
negotiations between the applicant/developer and the local government.
Legal authority, generally speaking, for local governments is derived from statutes, such as the LGA
or the Community Charter. The statutes also include conditions and limits on these powers. Court
rulings over time have provided interpretations of this legal authority and direction on how it can
be used.
In some cases the law is mandatory, i.e. requires local government to do something. In other
cases, it is discretionary, i.e. it gives local government latitude to do something or not. The courts
have acknowledged that zoning is a discretionary power, so councils/regional boards can choose
whether or not to approve a rezoning.
The courts have also recognized that councils/regional boards can examine a wide range of
considerations before exercising their discretion on whether to approve a rezoning request and
adopt the proposed zoning bylaw. Most considerations fall into two categories.
Planning and servicing considerations: The council/regional board may consider how the proposal
would fit with the policies contained in community and regional plans; what impact the proposed
development would have on local utilities such as water, drainage and sewage infrastructure; and
whether the capacity of roads, recreation and other facilities or services could accommodate the
increased demand.
Public interest considerations: The council/regional board may consider whether the proposed
development would have a positive or negative impact on the immediate neighbours and the
broader community. This would include considering how the development would fit in
aesthetically, whether the development would add or subtract from, for example, the supply of
affordable housing or industrial land.
It is important for local governments to appreciate that in the case of zoning decisions, the
council/regional board "discretion" is limited to either approving or not approving the zoning
bylaw. Having discretion to approve or not approve a zoning bylaw does not give authority to
unilaterally impose conditions.
If the council/regional board wishes applicants/developers to contribute amenities or provide
affordable housing, it should either amend its zoning bylaw to include density bonus options, with
specified contributions as a condition of higher density, or be prepared to negotiate such
contributions when rezoning applications are put forward. It is critical that any discussions with
rezoning applicants be negotiations, not the council/regional board imposing charges for rezoning.
While some people may view the difference between requiring a contribution and negotiating one
as semantics, it is nevertheless critical from a legal perspective. The courts can be expected to see
this difference as important in determining whether a zoning bylaw was done legally or illegally.
The Appendix illustrates an example of how to establish guidelines for CACs while remaining open
to negotiation.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
6 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Legal Risks
There are three specific legal risks that local governments should avoid when dealing with CACs:
imposing unauthorized fees, charges and taxes; not keeping an open mind; and using building and
subdivision approvals to obtain amenities.
Imposing Unauthorized Fees, Charges and Taxes
The LGA s. 931 includes a number of restrictions on fees, charges and taxes that can be imposed on
development applications. One provision of particular importance to rezoning applications is
subsection (6).
(6)"A local government, the City of Vancouver or an approving officer must not
(a)impose a fee, charge or tax, or
(b)require a work or service be provided
(c)unless authorized by this Act, by another Act or by a bylaw made under the authority
of this Act or another Act. 11
When dealing with rezonings, local governments can put themselves at legal risk by creating fees,
charges or taxes that are not expressly provided for in legislation.
Practices to avoid include:
•Imposing any charge, including CACs, for which there is no legal authority;
•Presenting an applicant/developer with a list of "required" contributions that will be
expected if the rezoning is to proceed; and/or,
•Adopting a general policy or a policy in a community or neighbourhood plan that could be
construed as imposing charges for rezoning and implying that these are not negotiable.
Not Keeping an Open Mind
When exercising their legislative discretion to adopt zoning bylaws, council/regional board
members must keep an open mind and cannot bind themselves, or pre-determine how they will
vote on the proposed rezoning bylaw. Elected officials are free to consider a range of factors but
they need to be open to rejecting the rezoning bylaw if, for example, they are swayed by
arguments put forward at the public hearing. Guaranteeing that a rezoning bylaw will pass before
it is voted on means that the council/regional board is no longer open-minded, and this should
never be done. In practical terms, this means that the council/regional board should not use
bylaws, internal policies or other means that could be construed to indicate that it is not open to
persuasion regarding whether a rezoning bylaw should pass.
It is worth differentiating between the above-mentioned commitment to pass a rezoning bylaw
and entering into an agreement with an applicant/developer that deals with the timing of the
transfer of affordable housing or amenity contributions. While committing to pass a bylaw prior to
voting is problematic, an agreement that sets out how and when specified amenities would
transfer to the local government afterwards, .i! a rezoning is passed, is allowed because it does not
interfere with the council/regional board discretion to pass the rezoning bylaw.
To stay clear of legal difficulties, any such agreements should be written so that any contributions
being offered by the developer would transfer only if and when the council/regional board adopts
the zoning amendment, but not in any way suggest that the council/regional board is committed to
adopting the rezoning bylaw. To be transparent, the council/regional board should also ensure
that the public is aware that certain amenities or housing are being offered by the
applicant/developer.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
7 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Practices to avoid include:
•Adopting a policy that could be seen as committing the council/regional board to rejecting
rezoning proposals unless the applicant/developer provides contributions; and/or,
•Guaranteeing an applicant/developer, either verbally or in writing, that a zoning
amendment will pass if they make certain contributions.
Subjecting Building and Subdivision Approvals to CACs
In some cases, the legislation gives certain development approval decisions to an unelected official.
Examples include the building inspector and the subdivision approving officer. The legislation does
not allow these "technical" decisions to be made or influenced by elected officials, so it would be
inappropriate for a council/regional board to try and use these approval processes to extract
contributions from the applicant/developer.
Practices to avoid include:
•Requesting or directing the building inspector or subdivision approving officer to levy
charges or require contributions that the council/regional board has no authority itself to
impose.
It should be noted that it may be practical for agreed upon CACs to transfer at the time of
subdivision approval or issuance of a building permit, and this is permitted. In such cases, the
contributions are not being imposed by the building inspector or subdivision approving officer as
they were already agreed to by the applicant/developer and the council/regional board, and the
technical approval is simply a convenient time for the transfer to be made.
Local governments should consult their lawyer for any legal advice on these or other legal issues.
Part 2 -Summary
Practices to Avoid:
•Imposing any charge, including CACs, for which there is no legal authority.
•Presenting an applicant/develo per with a list of "required" contributions for
rezoning to proceed.
•Adopting policies that could be:
o construed as imposing charges for rezoning and implying these are not
negotiable; or,
o seen as committing the council/regional board to rejecting rezoning proposals
unless the applicant/developer provides contributions.
•Guaranteeing an applicant/developer, either verbally or in writing, that a requested
zoning amendment will pass if they make certain contributions.
•Requesting or directing the building inspector or subdivision approving officer to levy
charges or require contributions that the council/regional board has no authority
itself to impose.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Part 3: Recommended Practices for CACs
Local governments currently using or considering obtaining CACs should consider the challenges
that CACs bring.
Official Community Plans and Zoning Bylaws
Zoning bylaws were invented a century ago, as a means to regulate land uses and structures,
particularly those that posed a threat to public health and safety. With the development of official
community plans (OCPs), zoning became the primary tool for implementing the plan.
As OCPs are long term visions, they are usually general in nature. They typically do not detail uses
or specific densities. This flexibility is acceptable because legally a plan is a policy document that
guides decisions of the council/regional board. Zoning, on the other hand, specifies what people
can/cannot do on their property, and therefore needs to be clear and specific. These differences
set the stage for a certain amount of negotiation when rezonings are proposed, and the
council/regional board needs to consider how the general, long term vision expressed in their
community plan should be translated into specific allowable uses, densities, siting, sizes and
dimensions in the zoning bylaw.
Councils/regional boards can expect careful scrutiny from the public when considering proposed
rezonings. The public is looking for confidence that the community plan they were consulted on is
being followed, both in law and in spirit. Understandably, public confidence in the council/regional
board and the OCP would be eroded if they believed that the plan would be amended whenever an
opportunity arose to increase local government revenue. While site-specific OCP amendments to
accommodate unanticipated developments are legally permissible, it is recommended that local
governments anticipate land use changes with periodic comprehensive reviews of the plan rather
than undertake frequent OCP amendments.
To maintain public confidence in the planning process, it is critical that councils/regional boards see
zoning as a regulatory tool, and a means to implement the OCP. It is vital that councils/regional
boards NOT focus on rezoning as a revenue source and lose sight of long term planning.
Councils/regional boards must avoid the perception that they are no longer planning but simply
"selling zoning".
Planning for CACs
Detailed information on the capacity of infrastructure such as roads, water systems, fire services or
recreation facilities to accommodate additional development enables a local government to assess
the impact of future development. This information enables local governments to establish DCC,
subdivision servicing and other servicing-related bylaws to address infrastructure requirements as
provided for in legislation. This "planning ahead" approach offers a good model for considering
potential CACs. Planning ahead can help ensure that potential contributions are earmarked for the
highest priorities. Such an approach comprises:
•understanding future growth projections, how the OCP vision and policies accommodate
growth, and how new development will impact the community;
•working with the community and stakeholders, including developers, to identify the
amenities that will help address the impacts of growth; and,
•estimating and allocating the costs required to pay for the amenities; and could also
include, establishing preferred target amounts for CACs.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
9 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
In most cases, this planning is best undertaken at the neighbourhood level. Some local
governments include neighbourhood "service deficiencies" or other "community needs" lists in an
OCP. It is recommended that local governments incorporate into the OCP a discussion of
amenities, including reasons for acquiring the amenities and how the costs should be shared
between new development and the existing population.
Community amenity contributions should not be used to fund annual operating, long term repair
and/or future replacement costs. Any planning for potential CACs should take into account the full
life cycle costs -including the annual operational costs and long-term repair and replacement costs
-of amenities that result from the contributions. Local governments should be prepared to assume
these costs and only acquire those amenities that they can afford to operate and maintain within
their annual budgets6 •
Where the impacts of new development have been clearly identified, applicants/developers are
more likely to consider the contributions that address these impacts as reasonable. Certainty and
transparency in relation to potential CACs are important. Uncertain and arbitrary CAC amounts
make it difficult for applicants/developers to assess the financial risk associated with a project,
which makes it difficult for them to demonstrate to potential financial backers that a project is
viable and worth risking their funds.
The principles and practices described in this section -such as planning ahead, planning at a
neighbourhood scale and clearly identifying the impacts of new development -apply equally to the
development of a density bonus zoning bylaw and the amenities identified in it.
Applying the Principles of Nexus and Proportionality
Applying the principles of "nexus" and "proportionality" will help ensure that
applicants/developers see CACs as fair and reasonable and also help community members to
accept new development.
Amenities adhere to the principle of "nexus" when there is a direct, demonstrable link between
CACs and the impacts of the new development. For example, where neighbourhood recreation
services are already overcrowded, both the applicant/developer and existing residents are far more
likely to support CACs targeted for the expansion of those recreation facilities, rather than for an
undetermined project or in another neighbourhood.
The principle of "proportionality" is adhered to when a CAC from an applicant/developer is
proportional to the impact that their development generates and consistent with the CACs made
by other applicants/developers. Asking an applicant/developer to contribute the lion's share of the
costs of a community centre, when the residents of their project would generate minimal usage or
where other applicants/developers have not contributed, goes against this principle.
It should be noted that nexus and proportionality are intended to apply in general, and it is
acknowledged that there is also a need to consider the unique circumstances of particular
neighbourhoods and particular developments.
New development also provides an opportunity to address needs beyond the immediate
neighbourhood, including affordable housing, heritage conservation and other public facilities
located elsewhere and serving the whole community.
6 www.assetmanagementbc.ca
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
10 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
When it comes to considering CACs for amenities that are not located near the site being
developed, it is particularly important to apply the principle of proportionality and demonstrate the
link with the new development. For example, a contribution to a recreation facility located across
town may be legitimate, but it should be based on a reasonable estimate of the usage by the
residents of the new development. This ensures that the public and the applicant/developer can
appreciate that the CAC is proportional to the impact of the new development.
The principles of nexus and proportionality are also important to consider when developing density
bonus provisions in a zoning bylaw.
Being Transparent About CACs
Some local governments use reserve funds to assure residents and applicants/developers that
CACs from new development will be used in specific neighbourhoods and/or for specific projects.
Accepting cash that is not tied to a specific project or capital plan for a group of projects is a poor
practice, and can suggest that the council/regional board is not in touch with neighbourhood or
community needs. This type of practice is also more likely to be seen by the applicant/developer as
unnecessary, arbitrary and simply a tax on development.
Maintaining public records of all types of CACs (e.g. financial, physical structures, and land) can also
help applicants/developers to anticipate financial impacts and incorporate these costs into their
assessment of whether a project is viable. This information can also speed up the rezoning
process, because it gives applicants/developers a starting point for considering what amenities
they should include in their rezoning proposal. This practice can also help to ensure that residents
are aware of the tangible benefits received as a result of accepting new development in their
neighbourhood.
Being transparent about CACs not only helps the public to have a more complete picture of what
the council/regional board is considering when it deals with rezoning requests, it also helps reduce
concerns that secretive discussions are being held to secure council/regional board support.
Determining CAC Amounts
Local governments are encouraged to borrow the principles and practices that apply to DCCs and
use them to develop (tables of/schedules of) estimated CAC amounts. These well-established DCC
practices will help citizens and applicants/developers appreciate the rationale for CACs, and see
them as fair and the process transparent.
The Ministry's Development Cost Charge Best Practices Guide provides numerous examples of how
to determine the appropriate cost sharing for many types of infrastructure. These best practices
have been endorsed by the Ministry, UBCM, and the development industry. The guide is available
online at:
http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov relations/library/DCC Best Practice Guide 2005.pdf
Some impacts of development are indirect, or difficult to measure, but are nevertheless real
concerns for the people affected. For example, densification of a neighbourhood through the
construction of higher buildings may result in more cars parked on the street, increased shade or
the loss of previously unobstructed views.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
11 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Providing amenities to offset these impacts increases the chance that new development will be
seen as improving the quality of life in a neighbourhood, not detracting from it. Installing street
art, changing bus stops to bus shelters, or replacing a seasonal outdoor pool with a larger indoor
facility, are examples. In some cases, these "quality of life" amenities also improve the
marketability of the new development. The policies in the Appendix illustrate one option for
capturing and funding such enhancements, e.g. a "neighbourhood enhancement project".
Determining the appropriate level of CACs for "quality of life" amenities is more challenging than
for infrastructure covered by DCCs, where benefits and usage can be relatively easily measured. In
some cases, there will be no formulas or best practices to assist in this determination. Local
governments will be required to make informed judgements (i.e. using the principles in this guide)
about which amenities are desirable, which are reasonable given the economics of the new
development, and how the costs should be shared between applicants/developers and the local
government.
Affordable Housing
Zoning bylaws can be effective tools for securing more affordable housing. However, before
seeking financial contributions from applicants/developers towards affordable housing, local
governments are strongly encouraged to adopt zoning measures that, in and of themselves, will
increase affordable housing.
As a first step, local governments should adopt an "affordability by design" approach to writing
their zoning bylaws. This means creating zones that allow for design features that can reduce the
costs of producing housing units and/or encourage additional units. Simple measures include
reducing or eliminating setbacks and parking requirements to allow land to be used more
efficiently. Other measures include defining density to exclude exterior walls, or utility areas and
other shared spaces. Adopting zoning provisions that allow more secondary units to be built, e.g.
suites and laneway houses, is also consistent with this approach.
Density bonus zoning can also be effective in promoting affordable housing. The zoning bylaw can
specify design features or affordability outcomes that would be required to allow the additional
units. For example, it could allow additional units if a certain percentage of the housing being built
would be smaller than a certain size.
Part 4 explains how strategies that increase the supply of housing, or provide incentives such as
fast-tracking development approvals, have a positive effect on affordability, while strategies that
rely on developers making financial contributions have more risk and may reduce supply and
contribute to higher housing prices.
Using CACs for Capital Costs Only
It is important to consider capital versus operating costs. It is reasonable to expect new
development to contribute to the capital costs of infrastructure and amenities necessary to
support that growth. Once the new residents and businesses move into that development, they
will contribute to the operating costs of the infrastructure and facilities, through user fees, utility
charges and property taxes. If CACs also go towards operating costs, then these new residents
may end up paying twice; indirectly, where market prices have increased due to CACs, and then
again with other residents and users. Therefore, operating costs of services and facilities are more
appropriately recovered through user fees and property taxes.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Some local governments have gone as far as to adopt policies indicating that CACs for facilities are
only to be sought where the local government has identified room in the budget for the anticipated
annual operational costs plus any projected repair and replacement costs.
As noted earlier, it is recommended that local governments consider the principles and practices
identified in this section in the development and implementation of density bonus provisions in
their zoning bylaws.
Part 3 -Summary
Ce rtainty, fairness and transparency in relation to CACs are important, therefore it is
recommended that:
•An analysis of what amenities are needed to address future growth and how those
could be provided should be incorporated into the OCP or other appropriate plans.
•Councils/regional boards NOT focus on rezoning as a revenue source.
•Local governments apply the following principles to CACs:
o nexus;
o proportionality; and,
o other DCC principles and practices to develop targets for CAC contributions.
•Local governments should adopt zoning measures that, in and of themselves, will
increase affordable housing.
•Community amenity contributions should be:
o limited to capital costs;
o earmarked for specific projects; and,
o kept in reserve funds and used only for the intended projects.
•Local governments should consider and apply, where relevant, the same principles
and practices to the development and implementation of density bonus provisions in
a zoning bylaw.
•Public records of all developer contributions be maintained.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cu ltural Development
Part 4: CACs and Housing Affordability
Local government plans, regulations and policies can have a significant impact on housing prices
because they affect the supply of developable land, as well as, the cost of developing that land.
Understanding potential impacts allows local governments to make informed choices, including
how and when to try and secure CACs.
Progress on Housing Affordability Requires a Focus on Supply
Fundamentally, actions that expand the supply of housing units will help keep housing costs down,
while actions that restrict supply will contribute to higher prices. In other words, if there is a lot of
housing available then buyers are in a relatively strong position and prices go down, but where the
demand is greater than the supply, there is more competition and prices go up.
Local governments make a major contribution to ensuring a diverse and ample housing supply by
adopting regional and community plans that identify housing needs and designate adequate
locations to accommodate anticipated demands. As outlined earlier, a variety of zoning measures
can also help increase supply, as can incentives such as fast-tracking development approvals.
Local government processes and requirements also affect the actual cost of producing housing.
Since CACs increase the cost of a project, it is important to consider who ultimately pays for these
additional costs, and how they may affect housing supply and, ultimately, housing prices. This
issue is of particular concern in areas where land is in short supply.
Who Ultimately Pays for CACs?
It is commonly assumed that when a developer agrees to provide CACs, the cost is borne by the
developer or they deduct the amount from what they would have paid for the land. In other
words, CACs reduce the developer's return on their investment or the land owner's profit, but do
not affect the cost of housing. This assumption is worth a closer look.
Are CACs Likely to Reduce Developer Profit?
A common assumption is that, if a local government obtains CACs from a developer, it simply
reduces the return on investment made by the developer. Real estate market economists and
historical evidence indicate that this is unlikely. The cost of development has increased
significantly over time, with increases in the cost of land, materials, labour, DCCs, etc. There is no
evidence to show that such cost increases have reduced developer profits. In fact, developer profit
margins have remained remarkably stable over time.
To the extent that developer profits vary, they are primarily affected by the business cycle.
Developers make more money when markets are vibrant, mainly because they sell more units in a
good market. They make less money when markets are slow, but again, this is mainly because they
sell fewer units in those conditions. The reality is that developers and their financial backers only
pursue projects if they feel that they can achieve their expected return on investment, which for a
typical project is around 15 percent.
It is more logical to assume that if CACs reduce a developer's expected return by a significant
amount, they would either decide not to undertake a project, or would not be able to find
investors for the project. The concern with this outcome is that fewer projects/new housing will be
built in the community, which in turn will put upwards pressure on housing prices.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
14 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Are CACs Likely to Reduce Land Owner Profit?
Developers know that they cannot simply raise their asking prices when faced with additional costs; that the selling price is set by the market. They also know that the costs of labour, materials, DCCs, return on investment, etc. are also fixed. Therefore a developer faced with increased costs, such as CACs, will try and find savings in the cost of land, offering less than they would have otherwise (see Exhibit 1).
,---. I I I I I I
�----.
Market price = construction costs +return on investment +costs of land +CACs
Exhibit 1: Impact of CACs on the price developers can pay for the land
Where there is a healthy supply of land available for development, it is more likely that the developer will find an owner willing to accept the lower price. However, where the supply of developable land is limited, as in B.C.'s growing urban areas, land owners are in a strong bargaining position and are less likely to accept a significantly lower price. Faced with significantly lower bids, the more likely result is that fewer land owners will be willing to sell. As with the above, the concern is that fewer projects will proceed, new housing units will not satisfy demands and this will put upwards pressure on housing prices (see Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2: A simplified comparison -impact of CACs on housing prices
Initial market q Developer q Developer buys q Housing supply C: Market prices Without CACs: price for land bids for land and builds meets demand rem ain stable
With Initial market q Developer q Reduces land Housing supply lq Market prices substantial price for land LOWERS bid owner incentive/ does NOT meet INCREASE
CACs: + for land willingness to sell demand
lcAcsl .0. c:::?:J I Fewer units built I
The above diagrams show that while CACs cannot directly increase the price of housing for a particular development, if they are widely used, CACs can push up prices in the overall market.
The amount of the CAC requested is paramount. If the value of CACs adds a relatively small amount to the cost of a project, the CACs may push the price of land down slightly and/or the developer might take slightly less profit, but the CAC amount is unlikely to prevent the project from
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
proceeding. Alternatively, when the value of CACs is significant, it is more likely that the project
would not proceed, and that the result will be upwards pressure on housing prices.
Land Owner Incentive to Sell is an Important Consideration
Developers often do not own the land they want to develop. They often have to purchase the
property, and in many cases have to assemble a number of independently-owned parcels. Their
ability to proceed with projects depends on whether land owners see it in their best interests to
sell their property, and this will vary from person to person.
Consider two contrasting scenarios:
A.A vacant, low density commercial site, where the owners are known to be motivated to
sell or redevelop. CACs may not present an obstacle to the owner redeveloping the site
themselves or selling the land to a developer.
B.An established residential area, with homeowners who are reluctant to sell and relocate
their families, but where the community plan calls for higher density. A developer trying
to assemble land in these circumstances would likely have to pay a premium to convince
owners to sell. The developer would be less able to provide CACs, without jeopardizing
the viability of the proposed development.
This suggests that an "across the board" approach to CACs is more likely to be problematic, at least
in some parts of the community, and local governments should be flexible in their approach and in
any policies they establish related to contributions.
Some local governments have developed information on CACs for land owners and developers to
increase awareness that CACs are likely to affect land values and to help them understand the
rationale behind their CAC policies.
Part 4 -Summary
•Strategies that facilitate an increase in the supply of housing have a positive effect on
affordability.
•Since CACs increase the cost of a project, it is important to consider who ultimately pays for
these additional costs, and how they may affect housing supply and, ultimately, housing prices.
This issue is of particular concern in areas where land is in short supply.
•The potential impact of CACs on housing affordability is higher where CACs are a significant
portion of the cost of the development.
•The impact of CACs is variable, suggesting a flexible approach is needed.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
litl Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Part 5: Choosing an Approach to Obtaining Amenities
There are currently three typical strategies used to seek amenities. These are:
1.Including density bonus provisions in a zoning bylaw (using the authority in LGA, s.904);
2.Setting preferred CAC amounts for properties being rezoned, typically on a per unit or an
area basis; and,
3.Seeking CACs based on the expected increase ("lift") in the value of the land that would
result from the rezoning, typically as a percentage of the lift.
Each strategy has some advantages but also some risks, particularly related to housing
affordability.
Density Bonus Zoning
Density bonus zoning is intended to provide options for the developer, to build either to the "base"
density or to a higher level of density, if the developer provides certain amenities or affordable
housing, or meets other specified conditions. The developer, by right, always has the option of
developing at the base level of density, but usually has an incentive to consider higher densities. A
density bonus is intended to be an option for the developer. It should be a "win/win" for both the
developer, whose profit should increase with the sale of additional units, and the local
government, who may obtain more affordable housing or amenities plus higher property tax
revenues for the additional units or floor area built.
Density bonus zoning has the advantage over CACs of being highly predictable, as both developers
and neighbours will know what range of density can be expected. Density bonus zoning works best
when the density bonus is a modest increase, so that it does not change the character of a
neighbourhood. "Pre-zoning" land with a density bonus saves time for the local government and
the developer, as it eliminates the need for rezoning and any negotiations over contributions.
Offering large bonus densities would likely undermine public confidence in the OCP and the
stability that the public expects from such plans. Local governments should also avoid setting an
unreasonably low base density, as this offers no practical option but to build the "bonus". Taking
away the choice effectively makes the contribution a requirement, and is not what the legislation
intended.
Local governments can sometimes find it challenging to gauge whether developers are likely to
take advantage of the density bonus and provide the amenity contribution conditions in a density
bonus bylaw. Some local governments consult with the development community and/or engage
people with expertise in real estate market and financial analysis to help shape proposed density
bonus zoning bylaws and monitor changes in local market conditions that may suggest adjustments
are needed to their bylaws.
Setting Preferred CAC Targets for Properties Being Rezoned
Some local governments pre-determine target CACs that they intend to seek from
applicants/developers when land is rezoned. Such targets should be designed to apply to typical
developments and serve as a starting point for negotiations. As explained in Part 1, CACs cannot be
presented as fixed charges.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
17 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Target contributions have the advantage of being relatively predictable, and yet still provide the
developer some room to negotiate if they consider that their development should receive
particular consideration. The target contributions also provide consistency and a sense of fairness,
offering a degree of assurance that all developers will be contributing comparable amounts.
The Appendix illustrates how pre-determined target contributions can be implemented, and
includes examples of policies.
Setting targets for contributions shares many of the same challenges as density bonus zoning, e.g.
in terms of determining a reasonable target contribution, so consulting the development
community and/or engaging people with expertise in real estate market and financial analysis is
recommended.
Negotiating CACs Based on Property Value "Lift"
Some local governments use the property value "lift" approach to securing CACs. This involves
estimating the land value prior to rezoning, estimating the value after rezoning, and using this
information as the basis for determining a financial target to negotiate as CACs.
Negotiating CACs based on a "lift" approach is inconsistent with the principles set out in this Guide,
and is the approach most likely to reduce the supply of developable land and housing, thereby
contributing to higher housing costs. The CAC principles set out in this Guide, including 'planning
ahead', nexus and proportionality, support an approach that clearly identifies community needs
and the impacts associated with new development, and links the CAC not to the "lift" in land value,
but rather to the cost of providing a package of amenities that makes sense given the development
being proposed.
Other issues to consider with the "lift" approach are that:
•the negotiations are often more complex and time-consuming, relative to the other
approaches; and,
•the value of the CAC is often highly unpredictable, compared with the other approaches.
Choosing a Strategy for Obtaining Amenities
Overall, it is recommended that local governments make density bonus zoning their starting point
when seeking amenities and affordable housing. Allowing modest levels of density bonus, tied to
modest contributions, strikes a good balance between ensuring new development contributes to a
community while minimizing the risk that these contributions hurt housing affordability.
Where "pre-zoning" land with a density bonus may not be practical, local governments are
encouraged to set targets for CACs, and be open to negotiation at time of rezoning. Again, the
target contributions should be modest to minimize the impact on housing affordability.
Negotiating CACs based on a "lift" approach is inconsistent with the principles set out in this Guide.
These principles support an approach that clearly identifies community needs and the impacts
associated with new development, and links the CAC not to the "lift" in land value, but rather to
the cost of providing a package of amenities that makes sense given the development being
proposed.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
18 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Part 5 -Summary
•Make density bonus zoning the starting point when seeking amenities.
•If not density bonus zoning, then set targets for CACs and be open to negotiation at time of
rezoning.
•Negotiating CACs based on a "lift" approach is inconsistent with the principles set out in this
Guide. The CAC principles set out in this Guide, including 'planning ahead', nexus and
proportionality, support an approach that clearly identifies community needs and the impacts
associated with new development, and links the CAC not to the "lift" in land value, but rather
to the cost of providing a package of amenities that makes sense given the development being
proposed.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
!Ml Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Summary
The purpose of this guide has been to help local governments understand the risks, challenges and
recommended practices related to obtaining CACs. The guide has also described the relationship
between CACs and housing affordability, and encourages practices that do not risk inadvertently
causing housing prices to increase. While the focus of this guide has been on CACs, most of the
recommended principles and practices apply equally to CAC and density bonus approaches.
The guide outlines the following recommended practices for local governments to consider in their
approach to CACs:
1.Avoid Legal Risk and Maintain Public Confidence
•Negotiate, do not impose CACs. A common misperception is that local governments have
authority to impose CACs as a condition of rezoning. In fact, the Local Government Act
[s. 931(6)] prohibits this. CACs must be negotiated.
•Avoid the perception that zoning is for sale. Elected officials must remain "open-minded11
during the rezoning process, and must not commit to approving a rezoning subject to
CACs. Zoning should not be considered a revenue stream. The perception of 11selling
zoning11 undermines public confidence in the local government and the community plan.
2.Plan Ahead
•Identify potential amenities that could be partly funded through CACs when preparing or
updating the community plan, ideally identifying the priorities at the neighbourhood level.
3.Seek Modest Contributions and Follow an Approach that Balances Community Amenities and
Housing Affordability
•The potential impact of CACs on housing affordability is higher where CACs are a significant
portion of the cost of the development.
•Since CACs increase the cost of a project, it is important to consider who ultimately pays
for these additional costs, and how they may affect housing supply and housing prices.
This issue is of particular concern in areas where land is in short supply.
•Strategies that facilitate an increase in the supply of housing have a positive effect on
affordability.
•The impact of CACs will be different in different areas or circumstances, so a flexible
approach is best.
4.Apply Development Cost Charge (DCC) Principles to CACs
•Ensure a direct, demonstrable link ('nexus') between CACs and the impacts of new
development.
•Ensure CACs are proportional to the impact of the development and consistent with the
CACs made by other applicants/developers.
•Be transparent about the amount of CACs and how they will be used.
•Borrow the principles and practices that apply to DCCs to develop (tables of/schedules of)
estimated CAC amounts.
•CACs should only be used for capital costs. Local governments should be sure that they
have the budget capacity to deal with operational and repair costs over time.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
20 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
5.Engage the Development Community
•Be aware of how CACs could impact projects and their viability, to avoid contributing to
higher housing prices.
6.Choosing an Approach to Obtaining Amenities -As a starting point to operationalize an
approach for obtaining community amenities, it is recommended that local governments consider
the following strategies (in order):
•Adopt an "affordability by design" approach to writing zoning bylaws -i.e. zones that
allow for design features that reduce the costs of producing housing units and/or
encourage additional units, e.g. reducing/eliminating setbacks and parking requirements.
•Use density bonus zoning -modest levels of density bonus, tied to modest contributions,
ensures new development contributes to needed infrastructure while minimizing impact
on housing affordability.
•Set targets for CACs -and be open to negotiation at time of rezoning. These targets
should be modest to minimize impact on housing affordability.
•Negotiating CACs based on a "lift" approach is inconsistent with the principles set out in
this Guide, and is the approach most likely to reduce the supply of developable land and
housing, thereby contributing to higher housing costs. The CAC principles set out in this
Guide, including 'planning ahead', nexus and proportionality, support an approach that
clearly identifies community needs and the impacts associated with new development,
and links the CAC not to the "lift" in land value, but rather to the cost of providing a
package of amenities that makes sense given the development being proposed.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
21 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
APPENDIX: Illustration of Policies for a Target Approach to CACs
The following policies illustrate how a local government can adopt an approach to CACs that is
consistent with the recommendations in this guide. The model is a hybrid of practices in place in a
number of B.C. local governments.
Local governments are encouraged to consider the following as a starting point, and customize the
policies to address local circumstances.
A. General Policies on Target Contributions for Land Being Rezoned
1.Council supports the view that residents expect new development to pay its own way and
make a positive contribution to the community.
2.To the extent that infrastructure and amenities are required to meet the needs of new
residents and businesses, the capital costs of these improvements should be borne by the
new development, and not be a burden on existing taxpayers.
3.Council encourages applicants for rezoning to consider proposing CACs towards needed
infrastructure and amenities as a way of ensuring that their development is seen as making
a positive contribution to the neighbourhood and the community at large.
4.Council will only accept CACs where it considers that future budgets will be able to support
the estimated costs of maintaining and repairing the infrastructure and amenities.
5.Where new infrastructure and amenities benefit both existing and new residents and
businesses, an estimate has been made of the proportion of these costs that would be
attributable to new development. Where practical, Council used methods similar to those
used to determine cost sharing of infrastructure paid for by development cost charges
(DCCs).
6.In addition to requiring expansion of facilities such as fire halls and recreation centres, new
development can impact neighbourhoods in other ways, such as increasing traffic and
increasing on-street parking. To help offset these impacts, a "neighbourhood
enhancement project" is included for each neighbourhood. Neighbourhood consultations
were held to prioritize potential projects. Council intention is that new development pay
100% of the cost of these enhancements.
7.Applicants for rezoning are encouraged to consider contributions in line with those
indicated below, for neighbourhood and for city-wide infrastructure and amenities.
Council acknowledges that market conditions, site specific conditions, and other factors
will affect the ability of specific projects to contribute towards infrastructure and
amenities. For this reason, the policy contains "recommended targets" only.
8.Non-profit organizations serving the community will not normally be expected to make
CACs.
9.The project costs, cost sharing and target contribution figures below are estimates and are
provided for information only. They will be adjusted periodically to reflect inflation, actual
CACs collected, or other new information. The most current information can be obtained
from the Planning Department and on the municipal website.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
22 Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
B.City-Wide and Neighbourhood Amenities
The following facilities were identified in the 2013 Facilities Study as requiring upgrading or
expansion due to new development.
1. City-wide
a) Transit Exchange Expansion Project
b}Old Market Heritage Preservation Project
c)Commuter Path Expansion Project
2.McKay Valley
a) Fire Hall #4 Expansion Project
b) Valley Recreation Centre Expansion
c)McKay Pathway Lighting Project
d}McKay Valley Neighbourhood Enhancement Project (traffic calming, landscaping and park
facilities upgrade}
3. Henderson
a)Fire hall #4 Expansion
b)Valley Recreation Centre Expansion Project
c)Henderson Community Hall Replacement
d}Henderson Neighbourhood Enhancement Project
4.Boundary
a) Fire Hall #1 Expansion Project
b}Mountain View Recreation Centre Expansion Project
c)Boundary Neighbourhood Enhancement Project
5.Northwest
a)Fire Hall #3 Expansion Project
b)Northwest Neighbourhood Enhancement Project
C. Targets for Cost Sharing of City-Wide Amenities
The following outlines the city-wide facilities that will require upgrading due to projected growth in
the community, and cost sharing expectations of Council. All applicants for rezoning should
consider CACs in line with the recommended targets. Council acknowledges that special
circumstances may exist with regard to certain development that warrant lesser CACs, and
encourages applicants to provide any information on such circumstances. Some special cases have
been identified, under "Exceptions".
City-Wide Capital % of cost Target from Recommended contributions
Amenity Cost attributable rezonings from rezoning applicants
to new dev't
Transit Exchange $1.SM 10% $150,000 $X per housing unit
Expansion $X per sq ft commercial or use
Old Market $800,000 10% $80,000 $X per housing unit
Heritage $X per sq ft commercial or office
Preservation use
Project
Commuter Bike $680,000 10% $68,000 $X per housing unit
Path Expansion $X per sq ft commercial or office
use
Exceptions
•Purpose built rental housing may be exempted.
•Single family dwellings under 1200 sq ft and ac cessory dwelling units under 600 sq ft may be exempted from
up to 50% of recommended targets.
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordab ility
-
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
D.Targets for Cost Sharing of McKay Valley Amenities
The following outlines the facilities that will require upgrading due to projected growth in the
McKay Valley neighbourhood, and cost sharing targets of Council. All applicants for rezoning
should consider making CACs in line with the recommended targets. Council acknowledges that
special circumstances may exist with regard to certain development that warrant lesser CACs, and
encourages applicants to provide any information on such circumstances. Some special cases have
been identified, under "Exceptions".
McKay Valley Capital
Amenity Cost
Fire Hall #4 $3.0 M
Expansion
Valley Rec Centre $SM
Expansion
McKay Pathway $200,000
Lighting
McKay Valley $1.2 M
Neighbourhood
Enhancement
Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public
Benefits and Housing Affordability
%of cost Target from
attributable rezonings
to new dev't
50% $1.SM
40% $2 M
80% $160,000
100% $1.2 M
Recommended contributions
from rezoning applicants
$X per housing unit
$X per sq ft commercial or office
use
$X per housing unit
$X per sq ft commercial or office
use
$X per housing unit
$X per sq ft commercial or office
$X per housing unit
$X per sq ft commercial or office
Ministry of Community, Sport
and Cultural Development
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
His Worship Brad West
Mayor, City of Port Coquitlam
2580 Shaughnessy St,
Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 3G3
Dear Mayor West,
Today, the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia released its
proposed new electoral boundaries for the province.
The proposed new boundaries result from a statutory requirement under the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which provides for drawing constituency
boundaries within each province. As British Columbia's provincial population
increased, the good news is that British Columbia gained one additional seat in
the House of Commons.
However, the bad news is that the Commission recommends that Port
Coquitlam be severed into two constituencies, with Port Coquitlam south of
Lougheed Highway belonging to a new constituency of Pitt Meadows – Fort
Langley. To sever Port Coquitlam in half and include the southern part with Pitt
Meadows and Fort Langley does not make any sense, and I will vigorously
oppose the Commission's proposal. Attached for your reference is a copy of the
proposed boundaries for both constituencies as well as a map.
Fortunately, the Act requires public hearings before issuing its final report, and I
encourage the City to make a representation to the Commission. Following
those hearings, the Commission will undertake a final report before being
submitted to the House of Commons for review.
…/2.
5.1
-2-
To give some context to redistribution, in the early years of Confederation, after
each decennial census, the government would introduce a bill describing the
boundaries of each electoral district and then have the bill adopted like any
other piece of legislation. That was subject to criticism as a highly biased task
focused on maximizing the governing party's electoral successes, often referred
to as "gerrymandering." In 1903, Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier altered this
procedure by placing the readjustment of constituency boundaries in the hands
of a special committee of the House of Commons on which Members from all
parties were represented. Each time redistribution of seats was scheduled to
occur, as provided for by the Constitution Act, 1867 and the latest census, the
government brought in a bill which did not contain any details about the
boundaries of individual ridings. After the bill was read a second time, it was
referred to a special committee instructed to "prepare schedules to contain and
describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return Members to this House."
That process remained highly partisan, and Members were not provided with
guidelines on which to base their decisions. That system remained in place until
1964, when non‑partisan electoral boundaries commissions were established to
draw and readjust the boundaries of electoral constituencies.
While the process described above is meant to be politically neutral, the
boundaries recommended are problematic. Therefore, the recommended
boundaries must be resolved before the final report lands before the House of
Commons and is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedures and House
Affairs for consideration.
My office can assist the City in identifying opportunities to ensure that the City's
voice is heard throughout the process.
Yours sincerely,
c.c.: His Worship Mike Morden, Mayor, City of Maple Ridge
His Worship Bill Dingwall, Mayor, City of Pitt Meadows
Encl.
Appendix 1 – Proposed boundaries for Coquitlam – Port Coquitlam
Consists of those parts of the Metro Vancouver Regional District comprising:
(a) that part of the City of Port Coquitlam lying northeasterly of the
Lougheed Highway (Highway 7);
(b) that part of Metro Vancouver Electoral Area A lying easterly of Indian
Arm and the Indian River; and
(c) those parts of the City of Coquitlam:
(i) lying northerly of the Lougheed Highway (Highway 7) and the
Barnet Highway (Highway 7A);
(ii) lying southerly of the Barnet Highway (Highway 7A) and the
Lougheed Highway (Highway 7) commencing at the intersection of
the Lougheed Highway (Highway 7) and the westerly limit of the
City of Port Coquitlam; thence generally southerly along said limit to
the northerly boundary of the Coquitlam Indian Reserve No. 2;
thence generally southerly along said limit and along the westerly
limit of the City of Port Coquitlam to the Fraser River; thence
westerly along said river to the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 1);
thence northerly along said highway to the northerly shore of the
Fraser River at approximate latitude 49°13'27 "N and longitude
122°48'53 "W; thence northerly in a straight line to the Canadian
Pacific Railway at approximate latitude 49°13'39 "N and longitude
122°48'57 "W; thence northerly and northeasterly along said railway
to Colony Farm Road; thence northwesterly along said road to
Cape Horn Avenue; thence northwesterly in a straight line to a point
on Fern Terrace at approximate latitude 49°14'29 "N and longitude
122°49'00 "W; thence northwesterly along said road to Mariner Way;
thence northeasterly and northerly along said road to Como Lake
Avenue; thence westerly along said avenue to approximate
latitude 49°15'47 "N and longitude 122°49'07"W; thence northerly in a
straight line to approximate latitude 49°16'20"N and longitude
122°49'10"W; thence northeasterly in a straight line to a point on a
transmission line at approximate latitude 49°16'25"N and longitude
122°48'57"W; thence northerly along said transmission line to the
Canadian Pacific Railway; thence westerly along said railway to the
limit of the City of Coquitlam; thence northerly along said limit to the
Barnet Highway (Highway 7A); thence easterly and southeasterly
along said highway to the point of commencement.
Appendix 2 – Proposed boundaries for Pitt Meadows – Fort Langley
Consists of those parts of the Metro Vancouver Regional district comprising:
(a) that part of Metro Vancouver Electoral Area A comprising Barnston
Island;
(b) that part of the City of Maple Ridge lying southwesterly of a line
described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the westerly limit
of said City and the Alouette River; thence generally southeasterly along
said river to 224 Street; thence southerly along said street and its
production to the southerly limit of said City;
(c) that part of the City of Pitt Meadows lying southwesterly of a line
described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the easterly limit
of said City and the Alouette River; thence generally northwesterly along
said river to the westerly limit of said City;
(d) that part of the City of Port Coquitlam lying southwesterly of a line
described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the easterly limit
of said City and the Pitt River Bridge; thence northwesterly along said
bridge and Lougheed Highway (Highway 7) to the westerly limit of said
City;
(e) that part of the City of Surrey lying northerly and easterly of a line
described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the easterly limit
of said City with the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 1); thence
northwesterly along said highway to its intersection with the production of
168 Street (approximate latitude 49°11'14"N and longitude 122°45'23"W);
thence northerly along said street and its production to 108 Avenue;
thence northerly in a straight line to the northerly limit of said city
(approximate latitude 49°12'54"N and longitude 122°45'24"); and
(f) that part of the Township of Langley lying northerly of the Trans-Canada
Highway (Highway 1).
Appendix 3 – Proposed new riding boundaries
Source: Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia