HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAC Report Dec 7 20151
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Program Policies -
Proposed OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015
Proposed CAC Council Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report provides a summary of the components of the Community Amenity Contribution Program,
based on the Resolutions passed by Council on October 19 and 27, 2015. At the October 27, 2015
meeting staff were directed to bring back further information on contribution calculations and were
also directed to bring back an Official Community Plan amending bylaw that established the CAC
program for the community utilizing a percentage of lift approach. At the October 13, 2015 Council
meeting, a brief discussion on changing the contribution approach for the CAC program occurred,
however no decisions were made on the matter.
In order to advance the CAC discussion further, this report includes a two pronged approach for
establishing a Community Amenity Contribution Program which includes:
An Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw that will establish the general components to be
included in the CAC program, noting that the specific details regarding the contribution
approach, values and application would be housed outside of the OCP in a Council Policy;
and
Two draft Council Policies have been prepared for Council’s consideration – one based on a
percentage of lift approach and the other based on a flat rate approach. The expectation is
that Council will chose the draft policy that best reflects their desired approach for
calculating contributions.
The Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association and the Urban Development Institute provided
comments to Council on the proposed components of the city-wide CAC Program prior to the October
19, 2015 Workshop meeting. In their correspondence, they have requested an opportunity for
consultation and dialogue on the Program. Given this request, the report recommends that the
proposed Official Community Plan amending Bylaw and Council policies be referred to the UDI
Liaison Committee for review. It is also recommended that the draft CAC policies be posted on the
website, along with an invitation to the public to submit comments. A summary of comments
received will then be provided to Council in a follow-up summary report. The Official Community Plan
amending bylaw will also be referred to a future public hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That staff be directed to obtain feedback on the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.
7188-2015 and draft Council Policy and provide a summary of input to Council in a future
report.
2
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Council has been provided with reports on June 15 and October 19, 2015 outlining the various
aspects and potential for establishing a city-wide community amenity contribution program. The
October 19, 2015 report included a set of legal principles regarding amenity contributions derived
from prior legal advice the City has received on establishing a community amenity contribution
program. These principles include:
i. A municipality has the authority to adopt density bonus bylaws and establish conditions
under which the density bonus is to be applied, including the payment of cash contributions;
ii. Density bonuses are the most defensible approach, should the required amenity contribution
be challenged on it’s legal basis;
iii. A community amenity contributions should be clearly tied to the impacts that are expected to
result from a zoning change;
iv. A community amenity program should be based on a ‘robust’ policy basis, rather than on a
simple decision of Council;
v. Establishing a contribution that is based on the amount of the increase in lot value could
provide a more equitable basis for the amenity program; and
vi. A site-by-site negotiated approach does not provide the clarity and consistency of application
of the program that the development industry needs, as well as potentially adding a
significant amount of time to the development approvals process.
With these principles in mind, Council was presented with a series of options for each component of
the City-wide Community Amenity Contribution Program.
At the October 19 and 27 Council Workshop meetings, the components of the CAC Program were
discussed and a Resolution passed for each. The following is a summary of the framework of the
CAC Program based on the content of the Resolutions:
1. Each CAC will be based on a percentage value of lift. [Note: A percentage value was not
included in the discussion]
2. The CAC Program will apply city-wide.
a. Those properties within the Town Centre Area Plan boundaries are exempt from the
CAC Program.
3. The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply, in
addition to the city-wide CAC Program. 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 $3100 per lot or dwelling unit.
4. The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings1, 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 905 of the Local Government Act;
1 Note: Additional exemptions from the CAC Program include:
single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots;
duplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed; and
triplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed.
3
b. Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established
under Section 905 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant
enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act.
5. An Official Community Plan amending bylaw was to be prepared that includes the
components of the Community Amenity Contribution Program. Development applications that
are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of this Council Policy will be subject to
the provisions of the Policy unless the applicable Official Community Plan and/or Zoning
Bylaw amending bylaw has/have received Third Reading.
6. Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may
benefit from the community amenity contributions.
b) CAC Program Examples
There are a wide variety of approaches for community amenity contribution programs in place
throughout the region. Council was provided a summary table, taken from the Amenity Zoning
Report prepared during the Albion Area Plan review in 2012. That table shows the variety of
approaches in use at that time, including density bonuses, site specific and area-wide amenity
contribution programs. In essence, the table shows that there is no one single approach in use
throughout the region. The following examples are intended to provide Council with options to
consider with respect to the components and implementation aspects of a CAC Program.
District of North Vancouver
The District of North Vancouver has implemented a CAC program that consists of a variety of
approaches for securing amenity contributions within:
Four defined OCP growth centres;
Residential developments outside of the growth centres; and
For sites where increased density is not contemplated in the OCP.
The details of the program are found within an administrative policy, which outlines the technical
aspects of when and how CAC’s will be considered as part of the development review process. The
Program incorporates three ways of collecting community amenity contributions:
1. For sites within the defined OCP growth centres, 75% of the value of the increase in land
(the lift) after rezoning.
2. For sites outside of the growth centres, CAC’s are calculated at $5 per square foot for
duplex, triplex, townhouses or similar developments and at $15 per square foot for
apartment developments.
3. For sites where an increase in residential density is not contemplated in the OCP, the CAC is
negotiated on a case by case basis, with the value of the amenity contribution to be
equivalent to 50% to 75% of the estimated increase in market value of the land after
rezoning.
The following table outlines the District of North Vancouver’s approach for calculating ‘lift’.
4
Source: District of North Vancouver, Community Amenity Contributions in OCP Growth Centres
For information, the District of North Vancouver’s brochure outlining their CAC Program is attached
as Appendix C.
Coquitlam
The City of Coquitlam has introduced an area-wide contribution approach within the Burquitlam-
Lougheed Neighbourhood. The program is part of the implementation of the transit-oriented
development (TOD) strategy for the area, and applies to new residential density that is associated
with a rezoning application at a rate of $3.00 per square foot ($32.29 per square metre) of new
residential floor area, up to a maximum floor area of 2.5 times the lot area.
For information, the City of Coquitlam’s brochure on the CAC Program for the Burquitlam-Lougheed
area is attached as Appendix D.
Pitt Meadows
The City of Pitt Meadows has implemented a CAC approach based on a voluntary contribution flat
rate of $2400 per unit for single family dwellings, $1200 per unit for townhouses and $600 per
dwelling unit for Apartments.
City of North Vancouver
The City of North Vancouver endorsed their Density Bonus and Community Benefits Policy in May
2015. It contains aspects that may be of interest to Council, as it is applied within the context of
A
B
C
D
E
5
OCP policies related to density bonusing, rather than a specific area as in the example from
Coquitlam. The purpose is “…to provide a greater degree of certainty regarding the purpose and
value of community benefit contributions that may occur in conjunction with development
applications.”
The framework of the program incorporates two categories:
1. Category A: Increases in density that do not exceed the density established in the OCP (on
Schedule ‘A’). The rate for these types of density increases is set at $20 per square foot of
residential floor area or a negotiated contribution; and
2. Category B: Increases in density that exceed the density established in the OCP, up to a
maximum bonus amount set out in the OCP. The rate for these bonus densities in the
Lonsdale Regional City Centre is set at $140 per square foot of residential floor area beyond
the existing zoning OR $110 per square foot of residential floor area outside of the Regional
City Centre. Category B amenity contributions can be negotiated only in unique
circumstances.
The City of North Vancouver’s Density Bonus and Community Benefits Policy has been attached as
Appendix E.
Provincial Guide for Community Amenity Contributions
In March 2014, the Provincial Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development released a
guide to provided assistance for municipalities when considering the establishment of a CAC
program. It provides an overview on the legal aspects, recommended practices for CAC’s, the link
between CAC’s and affordable housing and discussion on selecting an approach for a municipality to
obtain amenities.
A summary of its contents is also included in the Guide and provides a helpful ‘snapshot’ of the
recommended practices for local governments:
1. Avoid legal risk and maintain public confidence
2. Plan ahead
3. Seek modest contributions and follow an approach that balances amenities and housing
affordability
4. Apply DCC principles to CAC’s
5. Engage the development community
6. Choose an approach to obtaining amenities that considers a variety of factors.
The lessons that can be taken from the Provincial Guide mirror the prior legal advice the City has
received with respect to:
align the impacts of increased residential density to the amount of contribution;
use density bonuses, as permitted under Section 904 of the Local Government Act as the
primary tool for securing CAC’s; and
establish a program that is consistently applied.
For information, The Short Guide – Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community
Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability, released in March 2014 is attached to this report
as Appendix F.
6
c) Amenity Zoning Analysis Information
The following is an excerpt from the Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis, part of the
Amenity Zoning: Analysis and Options report prepared by CitySpaces Consulting in November 2012.
Council was provided with a copy of that report as an attachment to the June 15, 2015 Amenity
Zoning Overview and Options report. This information is intended to be helpful for Council to see
within the context of a percentage value of lift approach and in comparison to the examples from
across the region.
Implications for Community Amenity Contributions
As noted above, the total lift identified through either a general set of analyses such as these
or through a separate analysis for a specific rezoning is typically shared between the
municipality or district and the proponent. In areas where development demand is high a
higher share of the lift would usually be sought by the municipality or district (75% or higher
in some cases), but in areas where development is slower a more equitable split is usually
made (50/50 for example).
GPRA has applied a 50/50 split to the lift identified through the case studies and illustrates
the resulting charges that could be introduced on a per unit/lot basis to collect the District’s
share:
These charges can also be converted to a fee per square foot or square metre of GBA using
estimates of average sizes of unit types in the District:
Charge Sq. Ft. @ 50%
Current RS-3 RS-1 RS-1b R-1 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RM-6 (base)
A-2 $14.92 $4.59 $4.78 $7.65 $10.66 $7.24 $12.72 $6.13
RS-3 $0.00 $1.61 $2.30 $5.17 $8.53 $4.76 $11.89 $5.20
RS-1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $3.83 $7.38 $3.42 $11.45 $4.69
RS-1b $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.87 $6.56 $2.46 $11.13 $4.34
R-1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4.10 -$0.41 $10.17 $3.26
R-3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 -$5.19 $8.58 $1.47
Typically, however, a municipality or district would not have so many discreet charges, but
will instead create a flat fee for each major rezoning type. In order to recognize the varied
results from the lift analysis and to avoid being punitive to developers GPRA would typically
recommend the fee be set at the lowest level indicated from the analyses.
Charging out fees in a manner such as this, or by GBA, or a combination thereof allows for
developers to clearly understand the expected costs for CACs when preparing to purchase
land and when determining project viability. GPRA must note, however, that additional
analysis is recommended before the District proceeds with codifying any fees into Bylaws
and implementing a CAC policy.
While the above information was prepared in 2012 as part of the Albion Area Plan Review, the
principles and results provide Council with an additional layer of information with respect to the
selection of a contribution approach for the city-wide CAC Program.
7
d) Maple Ridge CAC Estimate Examples
The 2012 Albion Area Plan review included the discussion regarding amenity zoning and density
bonuses. GP Rollo and Associates partnered with CitySpaces Consulting, to undertake the financial
analysis of the Maple Ridge housing market to help determine what an appropriate contribution
amount would be for the density bonus framework. As part of that process, GP Rollo and Associates
developed a series of ‘sample’ pro formas to assist in the financial analysis.
To assist Council with an understanding of the estimated amount of contributions that could be
collected by utilizing the percentage value of lift, based on the District of North Vancouver approach
for calculating the value of lift. The following examples have been calculated using the sample pro
forma analysis prepared by GP Rollo and Associates in 2012. It is important to keep the following in
mind when reviewing this information:
The values are based on example pro formas prepared in 2012;
The estimated values contained in the example pro formas may no longer give an accurate
reflection of the local real estate market;
The estimated values are based on five case study examples from 2012; and
The analysis includes a number of assumptions that are clearly outlined in the report by GP
Rollo and Associates. Include in these are a 12% profit on total project costs for single
family projects and 15% profit on all multi-family projects. These are typical profit margins
utilized.
The estimated values based on percentage value of lift have been compared to the three flat
rate charges of $3100 (selected by Council), $5100 (proposed by the consultant) and
$7500 (additional option) discussed with Council in 2012.
The information contained in Table 1 is helpful in understanding the range in potential contribution
amounts that could be achieved for different housing forms, based on a percentage value of lift
contribution versus a flat rate.
Table 1: Maple Ridge CAC Estimated Values
Single Family Townhouse Low Rise Apt
Number of Units 82 15 80
Pro forma A) Project Revenue $51,828,000 $5,749,920 $19,782,338
B) Development Costs $43,719,391 $4,849,933 $16,685,972
C) Value After Rezoning $8,108,609 $899,987 $3,096,366
D) Value Before Rezoning $5,164,640 $740,213 $2,389,208
E) Lift Value $2,943,969 $159,774 $707,158
% Lift CAC % Rate Options
25% $735,992 $39,944 $176,790
50% $1,471,985 $79,887 $353,579
75% $2,207,977 $119,831 $530,369
Flat Rate Flat Rate $3100 $254,200 $46,500 $248,000
Flat Rate $5100 $418,200 $76,500 $408,000
Flat Rate $7500 $615,000 $112,500 $600,000
8
In considering the GP Rollo noted earlier in the report, and in looking at the above table, the following
observations can be made:
Different amenity rates per unit type are justifiable;
Areas where development demand is high may support a higher lift value of 75%, while
areas with lesser demand would support a lesser lift value of 50%.
Single Family example:
The single family housing form has a far greater lift value than the townhouse or low rise
apartment forms.
The % of lift approach results in an amenity contribution that is significantly larger than a
flat rate approach.
A flat rate of $7500 per unit would be closest in value to the 25% lift value.
Townhouse example:
The townhouse form of development has a significantly lower lift value compared to the
low rise apartment or single family form.
The flat rate and % of lift approaches result in fairly similar numbers, for example 75% of
lift is $119,831 verses a $7500 flat rate which results in a contribution of $112,500.
Given that townhouse has the lowest lift value of the 3 housing forms, a more modest
value of 50% lift or $5100 flat rate could be appropriate.
Low Rise Apartment example:
The low rise apartment form of development has a modest lift value, when compared to
the single family form, but is considerably larger than the townhouse form.
The flat rate approach results in a larger contribution that the % of lift approach.
A flat rate of $5100 may be appropriate.
e) Recent Development Activity
During the Planning Department business planning presentation, Council requested that information
on recent development activity be included in this report for their information. The following table
includes information on single family lots created and housing starts for townhouse and apartment
projects, from 2011 through to the end of October 2015, excluding development in the Town
Centre2, Commercial and Industrial permits. Note the table does not include lots that are pending
approvals.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 to Oct Average
Single Family new lots created 225 291 250 201 255 244
Townhouse BP’s 128 23 144 195 180 134
Apartment BP’s 158 307 180 49 6 140
Based on the above averages, and using a flat rate of $7500 for Single Family, and $5100 for
townhouse and low rise apartment, the annual CAC revenues could be in the order of $3.2 million.
f) Policy Implications:
A two pronged policy approach is being proposed to establish a citywide CAC program which includes
OCP Policy amendments and an adopted Council Policy.
2 Town Centre, Commercial and Industrial building permits have been excluded based on Council Resolutions
passed at the Oct 19 and 27, 2015 Council Workshop.
9
OCP Policy Amendments
The proposed Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015 (Appendix A) outlines the
general components of the city-wide CAC Program, noting that the specific details would be housed
in the Council Policy. In addition, it aligns the current policy framework within the Albion Area Plan
with the expanded scope of the program in the upper-level OCP policies.
Draft Council Policy
i. Percentage Value of Lift Approach
Pursuant with Council direction, a draft Council Policy has been prepared to reflect the percentage
value of lift approach (Appendix B1). It outlines the technical aspects of how the city-wide CAC
Program will be administered. In concert with the OCP policy amendments, this approach provides
Council with the flexibility of fine-tuning the technical aspects of the CAC Program in the future
without the need for an OCP amending process. In addition, the level of detail contained in the draft
Council Policy is not found in the OCP policies.
This approach and the method for calculating the amount of increase in land value as the result of a
rezoning (the ‘lift value’) is more detailed then the option of using a land appraisal as discussed at
the October 19, 2015 Council Workshop. By requiring more information from the developer as part
of each development application, it is felt that a more accurate lift value can be established, thereby
determining a community amenity contribution amount that is more reflective of the impacts of the
development and equitable for all developments.
ii. Flat Rate Approach
At the November 10, 2015 Regular Council meeting, a brief discussion occurred regarding
reconsidering the contribution approach Resolution passed at the October 19, 2015 Council
Workshop meeting. While Council did not make any decisions on this item, there seemed to be
some interest to continue the discussion on this item.
This option could incorporate more than one rate, based on the housing form, in keeping with the
principle that an amenity contribution should be reflective of the impacts of the additional density.
This could mean individual rates for single family, townhouses and apartment buildings. Based on
Council’s selection for the contribution approach, further analysis may be required prior to preparing
a final CAC Program Council Policy back for Council’s approval.
Alternatively, the Amenity Zoning report prepared by CitySpaces and GP Rollo & Associates included
an economic analysis for the Albion Area. At that time their recommended rate per dwelling unit was
$5100. The CAC Estimated Value Table in this report includes information on the contributions that
would result from $3100, $5100 and $7500 values.
The attached Appendix B2 is a draft Council Policy based on a flat rate approach as outlined below:
1. Each CAC will be based on a contribution rate for single family, townhouse and
apartment dwelling units as follows:
a. Single Family Residential development $_____ per dwelling unit or lot
created;
b. Townhouse development $______ per dwelling unit created.
c. Apartment development $______ per dwelling unit created.
10
The value of contribution for each of the above housing forms could be established at one of
the following rates, or at a rate determined by Council:
$3100 per dwelling unit (current rate used in the Albion Area Plan area)
$5100 per dwelling unit (rate proposed by GP Rollo and Associates in 2012)
$7500 per dwelling unit (alternative rate for Council consideration in 2012)
It is noted that some municipalities have established a program based on applying a standard rate
per square foot of new residential floor area. Should Council be interested in exploring this as an
option, the table of page 6 of this report prepared by GP Rollo and Associates would provide a good
starting point for that discussion. It is recommended that if Council supports this approach, further
analysis on the current real estate/development market within the City be completed, prior to
establishing the final rate or rates.
g) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association (GVHBA) and the Urban Development Institute
(UDI) provided comments to Council via email, on the proposed contents of the Maple Ridge
Community Amenity Contribution Program. They have requested that Council refer the policy back to
staff for further consultation and dialogue based on the following comments:
The GVHBA and UDI feel that it is important that development-based fees and charges be
predictable, transparent, proportional to the market in the community, and do not adversely
impact housing affordability;
There are concerns related to the quick establishment of a CAC program;
The UDI Liaison Committee feel Council has an opportunity to utilize ‘best practices’ in
establishing a city-wide CAC program.
The technical components of the CAC Program have been included in the attached draft Council
Policy (Appendix B). While not generally the subject of consultation activities, it is recommended that
the proposed policies be reviewed with the UDI Liaison Committee. It is also recognized that many
citizens will have an interest in the subject of CAC’s so it is further recommended that the draft
policies be posted on the City webpage along with an invitation for residents to provide comments.
The Communications Department have also offered to share this information via social media. All
comments received will then be provided in a follow-up report to Council. The OCP amending bylaw
will be referred to Public Hearing and the public will be provided with an opportunity to comment at
the Hearing.
When considering a change in Official Community Plan policy or Zoning Bylaw Regulations, the
generally accepted practice for in-stream development applications is that those applications that
have been presented at Public Hearing and received Third Reading would be exempt from complying
with the new policies or regulations.
h) Interdepartmental Implications:
Based on Council direction on the content and approach for the CAC Program, assistance from a
variety of City departments may be required to review the technical aspects of the Program. In
particular, assistance from the Finance Department will be required to prepare the Reserve Fund
bylaw(s), including any potential amendments to the Albion Area Plan Reserve Fund Bylaw.
11
i) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
If Council prefers to establish the CAC contribution approach as a flat rate to apply for all included
developments, it is recommended that the amount/rate be reflective of the land lift value. An
economic financial analysis is the most robust and defensible approach to calculate that rate. Such
analysis would require a budget allocation not to exceed $20,000. Alternatively Council may be
comfortable in selecting a rate based on the information contained in the staff report.
CONCLUSIONS:
The lessons learned through the establishment of the Albion Area Plan Density Bonus Framework
and from recent legal advice provide a number of general principles that the components of an
amenity program should incorporate. The components of the CAC Program determined by Council on
October 19 and 27, 2015 by Resolutions, achieve the principles of a consistent and equitable
framework.
The regional examples show a variety of approaches and tools in use for securing community
amenity contributions as part of the development process. The Provincial Community Amenity
Contributions Guide provides a list of recommended practices for municipalities to consider when
establishing a CAC Program. These examples show that each municipality has the flexibility to
establish a program that is best suited to the needs of their community.
The proposed OCP policy amendment will provide greater clarity for Council and the community with
respect to why and when CAC’s will be part of the development review process. The proposed CAC
Council Policies contain the technical aspects of the program that are of a greater level of detail than
in found in the OCP. As such, any future minor adjustments to the structure of the Program will not
be subject to OCP amendments or a Public Hearing.
In keeping with the principles of an open and transparent government, it is recommended that
feedback be obtained on the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015 and draft
Community Amenity Contributions Program Council Policies. The draft policies will be referred to the
UDI Liaison Committee and information will also be posted on the City webpage, along with an
invitation to provide comments. The results of these consultation activities would then be
summarized in a report for Council’s review and consideration prior presentation of the OCP
Amending Bylaw for first and second reading, and referral to Public Hearing.
“Original signed by Christine Carter” for
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Jim Charlebois, MURP, MCIP, RPP
Manager of Community Planning
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL., MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
12
Appendix A: OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015
Appendix B1: Draft Community Amenity Contribution Program Council Policy (Percentage Value of
Lift Approach)
Appendix B2 Draft Community Amenity Contribution Program Council Policy (Contribution Rate per
Housing Type)
Appendix C: District of North Vancouver, Community Amenity Contributions brochure
Appendix D: City of Coquitlam CAC Program for the Burquitlam-Lougheed Neighbourhood
brochure
Appendix E: City of North Vancouver Density Bonus and Community Benefit Policy
Appendix F: Province of BC, Short Guide – Community Amenity Contributions, March 2014