Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

Director of Current Planning in Consultation with the Directors of Cultural Affairs, Housing and Social Planning, the Manager of Engineering Services, Director of Real Estate Services and General Manager of the Park Board

SUBJECT:

East Fraser Lands: Cost Recovered Planning Program

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report recommends that Council initiate a cost recovered policy planning program for the East Fraser Lands in consultation with joint land owner representation by Weyerhaeuser and the City's Real Estate Services Division. This program would produce a Policy Statement with an illustrative plan and amenity strategy, to guide future zoning decisions. Proposed land use directions and related public amenity proposals would be evaluated and reported back in reference to Council Policy, including CityPlan policies for Victoria Killarney- Fraserview. This fully cost recovered program is outlined in Appendix A, with program resources identified in Appendix B and a budget outlined in Appendix C.

1. Map

DISCUSSION

Background: The Industrial Lands Policy for the Fraserview industrial area provides that "the industrial status of these lands will be reviewed if and when MacMillan Bloedel (Weyerhaeuser) decides to vacate their site". In September 2001 Weyerhaeuser began closing down operations at the White Pine Sawmill which occupies all lands south of Kent Avenue North from Kerr Street to Boundary Road. City policy indicates that if the owner no longer intends to operate this site for industrial uses under the current M-2 zoning, a residential future could be considered together with uses which complement that residential land use.

The lands in question consist of approximately 68 acres (27.5h) owned by Weyerhaeuser. An additional 36 acres (14.8 h) owned by the City with an intervening CPR rail line and a few smaller private industrial properties also fall within this area. Lands to the west of Kerr Street both north and south of Kent Avenue North have been redeveloped from primarily industrial to residential uses, with some local commercial zoning approved but not developed at the foot of Kerr Street.

Process and Policy Objective: Owners have indicated to City staff that they do not intend to develop the site. Rather they wish to market the site once a Council Policy framework is in place to set the stage for future rezoning and development. To facilitate sale of the land at an early date the proponents seek the earliest possible response from Council. It is proposed that the owner's timeline could best be accommodated and a policy direction achieved by having Council endorse a conceptual illustrative plan in September, identifying issues to be resolved, and leading to approval of a Policy Statement together with an illustrative plan and a listing of amenity requirements in early 2003. Staff support this approach to provide a broad framework for future land use directions for these lands and recommend a process to achieve this as described below.

Site specific policies would be presented for approval in the Policy Statement and given a three dimensional representation in an illustrative plan to define parameters for uses, urban structure, built form, density, open space and other public amenities. The starting point for this product would be a proponent initiated general concept plan to be taken to the public for discussion. Weyerhaeuser anticipates a corporate decision to proceed with a planning program by June 17, 2002, making the first two weeks of July the first opportunity to seek public input. This time frame could achieve an initial public response to issues and opportunities regarding proposed uses, built forms and amenities.

This concept plan would be modified to respond to public input and reported with public and staff comments to Council as an intermediate product in September based on which Council could give direction to staff prior to refinement of specific policies. Testing of the concept(s), and refining of policy parameters leading to the Policy Statement would proceed through to the end of 2002. Products would be presented to the public early in the new year. The results would be brought forward for formal adoption as a Policy Statement with a final amenity package in the Spring 2003.

Once the public has been engaged in the planning process and staff committed to the program, it would be beneficial for the land owners to provide assurances to the City that they will complete this initial policy stage, all else being equal. To this end, the City Manager will follow up with the proponents at the outset of the process.

Rezoning Program Staffing: To provide the proponents with the level of service which will achieve the appropriate products for approval early in 2003 requires a dedicated program team, including urban design resources and the usual range of departmental technical representatives (see Appendix B). This team would report to the Major Projects Steering Committee for direction and to resolve technical issues. The technical team has been assembled for an immediate start as soon as the proponents are ready to proceed, and hasundertaken scoping work to achieve a credible policy process and information baseline. In the Planning Department, the permanent "Cost Recovery Team" will be assigned the work.

Consultants: Funding is included in the budget for consultants to provide independent economic analysis of project amenities. This service is normally provided by the City's Real Estate Services. As Real Estate Services is a joint proponent with Weyerhaeuser, it will be necessary to hire outside resources, particularly as the analysis will relate to public amenities. Real Estate Services agrees with this.

Rezoning Fees: Cost recovery planning programs have established the principle that fees paid to cover pre-rezoning policy work would be contributed toward rezoning fees if full cost recovery is achieved, including rezoning. Given the size of the area involved, initial analysis indicates that there are efficiencies which allow full cost recovery fees for the policy and scoping portions of the program to be credited against future rezoning fees. The pattern of rezonings anticipated after the policy review, would determine whether it is also possible for Council to consider reducing rezoning fees through a fee by-law amendment, with full cost recovery for the overall process, but not beyond that, being the ultimate objective.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

A full cost recovery budget is outline in Appendix C, providing for the technical team as described above as well as a two stage public process. Consistent with cost recovery policy, an approximate10% cost is included for scoping work already undertaken to structure the process, accommodate the proponents' needs and provide baseline information in a timely manner. The study proponents (Weyerhaeuser and City Real Estate Services Division) agree with and are prepared to jointly fund this budget with payment in July.

PUBLIC BENEFIT CONTRIBUTIONS

Development Cost Levies (DCLs): DCLs will apply to new development at the approved rate of $26.91 per m² ($2.50 per sq. ft.) (daycare use set at $5.49 per m²/$0.51 per sq. ft.).

Community Amenity Contributions (CACs): Interim CAC Policy defines a rezoning on a site which is over 4.05 h (10 acres)or a change of use from industrial to residential, both of which are the case here, as a "non-standard rezoning" which is to be reported for direction on whether the flat CAC rate of $32.29 per m² ($3.00 per sq. ft.) on net increase in allowable non-industrial development be applied, or a negotiated approach be applied.

The policy further states for non-standard rezonings, in addition to the required DCL the CAC flat rate establishes a benchmark for negotiating. A negotiated CAC (cash or in-kind) should not be less than what the flat rate CAC would provide. The major projects standards (park, recreation, child care, non-market housing, etc.) were developed to address the usual range of amenity needs and represent the upper limit of CAC's. The policy also states that for non-standard rezonings providing a negotiated CAC, such as this project, the contextual information to assist negotiations could include: the cost of providing facilities to City standards; the adequacy of neighbourhood facilities; development economics (of the specific area and sites); and community support.

Staff note that considerable experience has been gained in negotiating in-kind and cash contributions and can now be applied in this case. Neighbourhood-specific needs would be considered along with the normal range of public amenity considerations. Given the economics of a modest land value lift anticipated on this largely unserviced site in a non-core area market, it is not expected that amenity levels achieved in or adjacent to downtown could be supported. Recent experience in rezoning other locations outside the downtown offers references for the range of amenity levels which may be achievable. In a number of such cases full city standards for the full range of public amenities have not been achievable.

Consistent with CAC policy, because the site is (at least) 10 acres, staff are seeking direction from Council regarding applying either the flat rate or negotiated approach. Consistent with past practise on such sites, staff recommend negotiating for combined cash and in-kind amenities of at least the flat rate value. With a large site and the types of uses proposed, more needs can be met on-site (there is a range of in-kind CACs to be considered) and there is potential for at least the flat rate value to be delivered to the City, though this might be at a cost less than the flat rate to the land owners.

This policy is intended to deal with local amenity needs, to ensure that new residential development does not generate significant additional costs for the general tax base or leave the needs of new residents unmet, particularly where few amenities now exist.

PROPONENTS' COMMENTS

Weyerhaeuser: "Planning in the south-east sector of Vancouver has evolved over the past 40 years. Following the closure of the Kerr Road dumpsite in the mid-1960's, the City initiated a planning process for the Champlain Heights area which led to the redevelopment of ± 150 acres of City-owned land during the 1970's and 1980's. The City-initiated planning and development of the Riverside and Fraser Lands neighbourhoods came next - in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

The one piece of the puzzle that has always been "waiting" is the Weyerhaeuser Lands (formerly MacMillan Bloedel) located east of Kerr Street. At the time of the Fraser Lands planning work, the City decided to refrain from any specific planning actions that might have put pressure on the Canadian White Pine and K3 operations and its many jobs. Instead, it was concluded that the future use of this area would be considered when Weyerhaeuser had made a decision on what it intended to do with the lands.

Now that Weyerhaeuser has determined that its facilities are no longer required, the City and the land owners are able to move forward in a cooperative process to complete the planning work on this industrial area and integrate it into the surrounding, predominantly residential area.

Weyerhaeuser has been working with Planning staff since the beginning of the year to design a planning process that meets the objectives of both Weyerhaeuser and the City in a timely and efficient manner. This report outlines such a collegial planning process. In this regard, Weyerhaeuser thanks Planning staff for their efforts.

The company acknowledges that their lands represent the `missing piece' in a residential area of the city and believes that their lands also have a new future in a largely residential use. However, residential uses also have significant amenity and infrastructure requirements.

Weyerhaeuser continues to be concerned that expectations may exist with City staff and the community regarding the standards for amenities and infrastructure that this project can offer. Council and staff need to clearly understand that East Fraser Lands will not generate `downtown land values' and as such will not be able to support `downtown' and/or `major projects' amenity and infrastructure standards.

A preliminary economic analysis has suggested that the project could perhaps support a combined DCL and CAC in the order of $6.00 to $7.00 per buildable square foot. Weyerhaeuser would prefer to move forward on the basis of a known flat-rate development charge. City staff, however, believe that there are efficiencies inherent to the negotiated approach that would deliver a greater amenity value through in-kind provision of amenities. Weyerhaeuser does not share this view.

Finally, Weyerhaeuser appreciates the significance of entering into a planning process involving such a significant land holding. Indeed, the City's costs for the planning process (this report) and the costs of assembling a consultant team represent a $1 million expenditure. The company acknowledges that an active planning process engages the residents of a community and, to a certain extent, creates an expectation of subsequent change.

Weyerhaeuser has been asked to make a commitment that it will stay with the planning process through to the Spring of 2003. Therefore, Weyerhaeuser is prepared to make the commitment to use their best efforts to complete the planning process recognizing that there may be factors (such as soils issues, development economics, etc.) that cause the company to pursue alternate marketing and development options. In the event Council endorses the work program outlined by this report and it is subsequently supported by Weyerhaeuser at a June 14 meeting, the company is prepared to provide a formal corporate commitment letter to the City Manager."

Real Estate Services: "In regard to the City land involved, Real Estate Services concurs with the process outlined in this report and the cost recovery funding required to implement it.'

CONCLUSION

The City's Industrial Lands Policy indicates that the owner's decision to close the White Pine Sawmill and to vacate the site is an appropriate trigger to consider future land use alternatives for the Fraserview Industrial area or East Fraser Lands. A Council approved Policy Statement accompanied by an illustrative plan and amenity requirements would achieve the owner's objective of an indication of fundamental future land use and development scale and directions. This will provide a policy framework within which specific zonings can follow immediately at the discretion of the land owners, together or separately. This framework will account for the results of soil analysis as available information permits, likely dealing with detailed assessment in the fall. The program outlined in Appendix A together with staff resources described in Appendix B and full cost recovery budget of $476,000.00 in Appendix C would achieve initial Council direction in September and a completed Policy Statement and illustrative plan and a listing of required amenities in the Spring of 2003.

- - - - -

APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 1

Recommended Timetable

Scoping

February Initial Meetings

March Background Research

April Dialogue on Process Options

May Provision of Preliminary Soils, Geotech, Survey and Concept clarification

June Weyerhaeuser to Confirm `Go ahead'

Policy Process

July Initial Public Process

Sept Policy Parameters and draft Illustrative Plan concept(s) Report to Council with commentary: policy support, public input, issues

Sept - Dec Land Use, Urban Design, Amenity Policy Refinement, resolution of technical issues

January - Feb. Second Public Process

March / April Council Report: Policy Statement, with illustrative plan and amenity requirements

APPENDIX B
Page 1 of 1

Program Resources

Staffing

      

Time (Person Months) Allocation by Stage

  
       

Scoping:
Feb - June

Policy Phase: July - April

Core Team

          

Senior Planner

      

2.50

3.00

Project Planner

     

1.50

9.00

Planning Analyst

      

1.00

4.50

           

Technical Team

          

Projects Engineer

      

0.25

4.50

Urban Designer

      

0.50

3.00

           

Planning Analyst

     

-

4.50

Social Planning

      

0.375

2.25

           

Park Planner

     

0.375

2.25

           

Housing Planner

     

0.25

2.25

Solicitor

      

-

1.00

Dev. Services / Fire

     

-

0.50

APPENDIX C
Page 1 of 1

East Fraser Lands Cost Recovery Budget

    
         

Staffing

        

Core Team

  

Scoping Cost

  

Policy Program Cost

Senior Planner / Assistant Director

  

$ 18,615.77

 

$ 22,601.67

         

Project Planner II

  

$ 8,776.85

 

$ 52,661.07

         

Planning Analyst

  

$ 4,301.09

 

$ 19,640.70

         

Technical Team

        

Planning Analyst

     

$ 19,640.70

         

Solicitor

  

$ -

 

$ 9,000.00

         

Civil Eng II

  

$ 1,621.67

 

$ 29,190.11

         

Urban Designer P II

 

$ 3,271.01

 

$ 19,917.03

         

Social Planner

  

$ 2,639.11

 

$ 16,190.71

         

Park Planner

 

$ 2,465.38

 

$ 14,937.77

         

Housing Planner P III

 

$ 1,883.47

 

$ 16,951.25

         

Dev. Services / Fire

 

$ -

 

$ 3,844.10

Total Salaries, Benefits

  

$ 43,574.35

 

$ 224,575.10

         

Public Consultation

 

$ -

 

$ 11,000.00

Public Hearing

 

$ -

 

$ -

Overtime

 

$ -

 

$ 4,000.00

Consultancies

 

$ -

 

$ 50,000.00

Supplies, Service

 

$ -

 

$ 16,714.00

Contingency

     

$ 28,957.51

Allocated Costs

 

$ 6,841.17

 

$ 52,633.72

Total Outlay Cost

 

$ 50,415.53

 

$ 387,880.33

         

Office Space

 

$ 2,500.00

 

$ 9,000.00

Corp Serv

 

$ 2,520.78

 

$ 19,394.02

Commun Serv

 

$ 504.16

 

$ 3,878.80

Total Internal Costs

 

$ 55,940.46

 

$ 420,153.15

         

Cumulative Budget

     

$ 476,093.60

         

* * * * *

ag020528.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver