Agenda Index City of Vancouver

 

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Manager of the Housing Centre, in consultation with the Manager of Real Estate Services and the Director of Land Use & Development
SUBJECT: Community Amenity Contribution Calculations -
4255 Arbutus Street (Arbutus Village Centre)
 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Council's practice is to apply public amenity standards for the calculation of Community Amenity Contributions developed through the public consultation and approval processes for the downtown major projects and since applied elsewhere.

PURPOSE

This report provides Council with the basis for the calculations for the Community Amenity Contributions recommended in the companion administrative report for Arbutus Village Centre (4255 Arbutus Street).

BACKGROUND

The companion referral and Community Amenity Calculation reports describe the project's background. They were considered by Council on March 24, 1998, and deferred pending additional information regarding the basis for the Community Amenity Calculations. Council approved:

b) the standards used by the City when determining Community Amenity Contributions for other major projects.

Subsequently, Council, on April 7, 1998, amended its motion to refer the requested report to Council.

DISCUSSION

In a letter dated March 13, 1998, Michael Geller, on behalf of the project's proponent, questioned the basis for the Community Amenity Contribution calculations. Mr. Geller's letter is attached as Appendix A. A comparison of the public benefits required in the major projects is provided in Appendix B. The estimated cost of these facilities are included, but caution is required when comparing them as significant project costs, such as basic engineering services, are not included.

Population Projections

The primary issue raised by Mr. Geller relates to the population projections used for the calculations. These are central to determining the size of the Community Amenity Contribution, since the contributions for parks, in particular, but also other standard amenities such as daycare, library and community centre, are a function of the population projections.

For the purposes of calculating the Community Amenity Contribution, the intended use of the project is not the primary issue. Mr. Geller questions why the population estimate includes children, as this is intended to be a non-family (seniors) project. This mistakes the purpose of the population estimates and the Community Amenity Contribution calculations based on the City's public amenity standards. The public amenity standards are based, not on the household mix of this project per se (ie. 100% non-families), but on the household mix which the City expects to achieve in the Vancouver community of the future (ie. at least 25% family and 75% non-family households). Staff are applying public amenity standards to determine the total size of the Community Amenity Contribution. These standards represent the upper limit on the Community Amenity Contribution. Staff note that the project is generating an increase in land value that far exceeds the limit set by the City's standards. The total Community Amenity Contribution represents a payment-in-lieu for the public amenities such as non-market housing, parks, etc. as well as the family housing that will not be built on site. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the City standard 25% family housing to estimate the population on which the payment-in-lieu, which is what the Community Amenity Contribution amounts to, is based.

There are 142 units proposed for the project with an average size of 1400 gross sq. ft. The unit breakdown is not yet determined, however, at this size they can all be expected to be 2 bedroom units or larger. The 1991 census indicated that new 2-bedroom apartments, where one of the residents is 55 or over, would be occupied by 1.9 residents. This would generate 270 residents for the 142 units currently proposed.

The standards developed for the downtown major projects, and since used elsewhere, require that 25% of the units be designed for families. For this proposal, 36 units would have to designed for families. Fourteen of these units would be social housing family units, which typically generate one and a third child per household, for 20 children. The remaining 22 units would be market family housing which might generate 10 or so children. Therefore the family units might generate 30 children, resulting in a total population estimate for the project of 300 residents.

Park Cost

The park standard is 2.75 acres/1000 residents, so at 300 estimated residents, 0.825 acres of park is required. For comparison, Mr. Geller's estimated population of 227 would require 0.624 acres of park.

Mr. Geller questions the estimated cost of $110 per sq. ft. park cost. He notes that the Draft Financing Growth Discussion Paper states that the average residential land values are $65 to $90 per sq. ft. This is a City wide range, and land values for single family property in the vicinity of Arbutus Village are above average in value. The $110 per sq. ft. park cost is based on having to buy single family lots at $100 per sq. ft., plus $10 per sq. ft. cost to develop the park. The $100 per sq. ft. cost to acquire single family lots is conservative. Park requires consolidated sites created by acquiring several adjacent lots. There is usually a cost premium to consolidate property and, in addition, if the lots include improvements with some value, which is likely to be the case, the cost could easily exceed the $100 per sq. ft. estimated acquisition cost.

Social Housing

The social housing standard requires that 20% of the units (28) be made available at a price that would work within the budgets established for social housing projects. Half (14) would have to be designed for families. The Community Amenity Contribution for social housing is the difference between the market and the social housing land values.

Mr. Geller argues that the social housing contribution is excessive because it assumes a difference of $40 per buildable sq. ft. between the market and social housing land values. He argues that a $15 to $30 per sq. ft. difference would be more reasonable based on the major project experience. The difference between the market and social housing land values varies from project to project as it is a function of land values, design and the mix of uses.

For instance with the pay-in-lieu negotiated from Concord last year, the difference was $15 per sq. ft. based on a market value of the land of $55/sq. ft. and a social housing land value of $40/sq. ft. Staff based the Arbutus Village Centre figure on a market value of land of $65 per buildable square foot, and a social housing value of $25 per buildable sq. ft. The independent appraisal of the site commissioned by the City determined the market value to be $80 per buildable sq. ft. The recently tendered social housing project in the Arbutus Industrial Area generated a social housing land value of $21 per buildable sq. ft.

Daycare

The daycare standard is based on the number of children and the labour force participation rate. For this proposal, the formula generates a need for 2.59 spaces for preschoolers, 2.07 spaces for elementary school aged children and 1.8 spaces for the general non-family population. Mr. Geller questions why a daycare contribution is required for a non-family project. The logic for including families has been addressed above, however, it is worth noting that 1.8 spaces, at a cost of $66,000, would be required even if there were no family component included in the payment-in-lieu/Community Amenity Contribution calculations.

Community Centre/Library

The standard for community centre contributions is 2.29 sq. ft. per person at a cost of $200 per sq. ft., and for libraries $44.63 per person. Mr. Geller does not dispute the formula, but recalculates the amounts based on his population projection of 227 instead of 300 residents.

School

As noted in the accompanying Community Amenity Contribution report, schools have only been required in projects that generate at least 200 children. In this case, around 20 school aged children would be generated which could require a portable at a cost of $50,000. Mr. Geller questions why a school contribution is sought as this would be a non-family project, and also because it has not been standard City practice in the past. It is acknowledged that this contribution represents a shift in the approach taken with the other major projects.

Adaptability Standards

The City has no standards for adaptability. Mr. Geller argues that the estimated cost for the adaptability modifications proposed (estimates ranging from $1 Million to $2 Million) should be deducted from the total Community Amenity Contribution. He notes that the City considered accessibility improvements as an acceptable public benefit for a project at 54th and Oak, and bonused a project for 6 accessible units at Oak and 40th. There are three responses. Firstly, the independent appraisal of the project took into account the impact of the proposed improvements to the selling price of the units and of the cost of the improvements (estimated at $1.5 Million). The appraisal indicated that the market value of the land was not affected by the proposed adaptability improvements. In other words, the developer would recoup most or all of their cost through the selling prices. Secondly, the two projects mentioned are not comparable: what is proposed in this project is adaptability, not accessibility. The project bonused at 40th and Oak (where the units will be owned by a non-profit society and rented to the severely disabled) has delivered fully accessible units. The proposal for 54th and Oak also proposed a limited number wheelchair accessible units.

Lastly, when there is a policy decision on whether to include adaptability or accessibility in the list of public benefits the City seeks through rezonings, it is likely to result in an additional requirement and not a reduction in the existing requirements. Projects that can afford to meet all the existing standards plus any new adaptability/accessibility standards, as this project probably could, would be expected to do so.

Comparison to Other Major Projects

Council asked for a comparison between this project and the other major projects where the City's public amenity standards have been achieved. (There are major projects where they have not been achieved, such as Collingwood Village and the Arbutus Industrial Area, due to constraints on those project's economic viability).

Appendix B compares this project with the major projects where the standards were achieved. It illustrates the requirements for infrastructure and facilities in the major projects. It should be noted that the many of the public amenities have been provided on site for which costs are not available. These costs were extensive, covering streets, seawalls and utilities. This project does not face the same infrastructure requirements. Not including infrastructure or park, which in most cases was provided on site, the dollar costs for the public amenities averages $5.17 per buildable square foot compared to $6.44 for this project. The cost that drives the total Community Amenity Contribution for this project to $27.38 per buildable sq. ft. is the cost of park and to a lesser extent social housing. Pay-in-lieu for park and social housing has been required for other projects, such as CityGate and International Village, and the pay-in-lieu is based on land values in the vicinity. This project is located in a high value single family neighbourhood resulting in a high park and social housing pay-in-lieu.

CONCLUSION

The basis for the Community Amenity Contribution calculations for the proposed rezoning of Arbutus Village Centre are based on standards developed over the past decade in the downtown major project developments, and since applied elsewhere. The approach taken to the calculation was to apply these standards to the project to determine the maximum payment-in-lieu, recognizing that the Community Amenity Contribution funds raised would not be spent on site. The total Community Amenity Contribution is high relative to the other projects, not because different standards were used, but because land values in the area are high.

* * * * *

ag980412.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.

[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver