POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: May 30, 1996
Dept. File No.: RP
TO: Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM: Director of Community Planning, in consultation with
General Manager of Engineering Services
Manager of Housing Centre
Manager of Real Estate Services
Director of Social Planning
Director of Legal Services
General Manager of Parks and Recreation
Director of Permits and Licenses
SUBJECT: Oakridge/Langara Public Benefits Strategy
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council adopt the Oakridge/Langara Public Benefits
Strategy, including the allocation of funds to identified
capital projects and implementation actions, as described in
this report.
B. THAT the area of Oakridge/Langara shown in Figure 1 be
established as a Development Cost Levy (DCL) District and that
the policies in Appendix A be adopted to guide administration
of DCLs in the Oakridge/Langara neighbourhood.
C. THAT the 1996 rate for collection of Development Cost Levies
(DCLs) be set at $34.98 per square metre ($3.25 per square
foot) for all uses; other than for daycare which will be set
at $5.49 per square metre ($.51 per square foot).
D. THAT the levy proceeds be spent in the following proportions:
(i) 63 percent for park acquisition and development;
(ii) 30 percent for replacement housing; and
(iii) 7 percent for street (walking) improvements.
E. THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare
the necessary by-laws for report back.
F. THAT the General Manager of Engineering Services and Director
of Community Planning work with area residents in the design
and implementation of street (walking) improvements along
pedestrian collector routes (mainly Heather, Tisdall and
Willow Streets) to improve safety and convenience, with the
source of funds to be DCLs.
G. THAT the General Manager of Parks and Recreation work with
area residents in the design and implementation of
improvements to Oak Park and Tisdall Park, with the source of
funds to be DCLs.
H. THAT the Manager of Real Estate Services be instructed to
secure a waterfront park site, or sites, as suitable sites
arise as a priority, with the source of funds to be Community
Amenity Contributions (CACs), or the Property Endowment Fund
(Land Acquisition Fund), to be repaid, with interest, by CACs
as they become available.
I. THAT staff report back on public involvement, design and
detailed funding arrangements, prior to implementation of
capital projects described in this Strategy.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A
to I.
COUNCIL POLICY
Since 1989, some applicants for CD-1 rezonings in Vancouver have been
required to make Community Amenity Contributions (CACs).
In 1992, Council adopted the Downtown South DCL By-law and related
polices including the policy "that development cost levies outside the
Downtown South be considered as part of area-wide rezonings based on a
community plan," and in 1994, Council established a DCL District for
Burrard Slopes, and in 1995, Council established a DCL District for the
Arbutus Neighbourhood.
On July 27, 1995, Council approved the Oakridge/Langara Policy
Statement. Council also directed staff to complete traffic management
planning and a public benefits strategy (including investigation of
applying DCLs). Staff were further instructed to report back on
alternative approaches to recovering the cost of city infrastructure
upgrades needed to service the new population, and on possible
infrastructure phasing options.
In 1994, Council approved the Public Art Policies and Guidelines, which
seek contributions from any privately-initiated rezoning resulting in
new floor space of greater than 15 000 square metres (161,463 square
feet). The current rate is $10.23 per square metre ($0.95 per square
foot).
On May 28, 1996, Council instructed staff to report back on staffing
needs to administer the existing and future DCLs, CACs and the regional
DCCs, if introduced.
SUMMARY
On July 27, 1995 Council adopted the Oakridge/Langara Policy Statement
and directed a report back on a Public Benefits Strategy, and on
alternative approaches to recovering infrastructure upgrades and
possible phasing options. The Public Benefits Strategy described below
provides a comprehensive approach to new public amenities provision. It
recommends applying: (a) DCLs; and (b) CACs, and using these
contributions in concert with direct provision of amenities by
developers to ensure that new development pays its fair-share toward
public benefits needed by the new population. Analysis of
infrastructure upgrade impacts on the City's water, sewer and transport
systems conclude that sufficient incremental upgrades will be achieved
at the time of new construction. Staff do not recommend these costs be
added to the proposed DCL charge.
Staff recommend a general DCL rate of $34.98 m2 ($3.25 sq. ft.) and a
reduced rate of $5.49/m2 ($.51/sq. ft.) for daycare. This could result
in the collection of about $15,500,000 in DCL contributions as the area
develops. The proposed DCL boundary is shown in Figure 1. Staff also
recommend that through rezonings, direct provision of amenities and CACs
be pursued which could result in the collection of $16,900,000 of cash
or in-kind benefits. The estimated total supply of funds from new
development to provide new amenities is $15,500,000 from DCLs and
$16,900,000 from CACs, for a total of $32,400,000. Additional funding
from future Capital Plans, or other sources, may be needed to fully
address the identified benefit items or to add new amenities.
The estimated cost of identified public benefit items is $41,500,000.
Residents assisted in the identification and prioritizing of required
benefits. This resulted in a modification to the pro-rated approach of
providing new amenities to provide funding of Existing Park Upgrading
and Walking Improvements at 100% of costs.
Figure 1. Proposed DCL Boundary
Based on the recommended approach the DCL allocations are: Park
Purchase, Development and Upgrading, 63%; Replacement Housing, 30%; and
Walking Improvements, 7%. CACs are recommended to provide Childcare
Facilities, Non-market Housing and some Park Acquisition and
Development. Council retains the flexibility to re-allocate DCL and CAC
expenditures in the future.
Area residents and interested parties have been informed of the
recommended approach and that they may address Council Committee as
delegations.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to present a Public Benefits Strategy that
responds to the need for public amenities required by new development in
Oakridge/Langara. The Strategy seeks to:
- have Council approve an approach to supplying public benefits,
including the application of DCLs, CACs and other funding measures;
- adopt the boundary, rate and administrative policies for the DCL
district;
- establish how DCL proceeds should be allocated;
- request the necessary by-laws be brought forward for enactment; and
- have Council approve priority implementation actions.
The Strategy also addresses the needs for infrastructure servicing
requirements.
An accompanying report on traffic management planning in
Oakridge/Langara includes: details on how current traffic issues may be
addressed; and measures required to mitigate traffic impacts from
redevelopment.
BACKGROUND
1. Oakridge/Langara Policies
On July 27, 1995 Council adopted the Oakridge/Langara Policy Statement
and directed staff to report back on a Public Benefits Strategy. The
Policies provide for new development where opportunities for increasing
residential variety and affordability exist, and where shops, services
and transit are found. New development could add approximately 3,500
new housing units and 5,800 new residents, over 20 to 30 years. During
the Policy Statement preparation, residents expressed a desire to
maintain the current level of amenities in their neighbourhood.
The Public Benefits Strategy addresses specific Policy Statement
objectives such as:
- increased daycare facilities, park space and community centre space
should be provided;
- provide for housing variety and affordability, e.g., 20% non-market
housing units on large sites and replacement housing where new housing
would be unaffordable for displaced tenants;
- Greenways, bikeways and walkways should be complemented with traffic
calming on important local routes; and
- redevelopment should contribute its share towards public
infrastructure to accommodate long-term servicing requirements.
The Public Benefits Strategy aims to ensure that all new development
contributes its fair-share towards new public benefits provided by the
City. Staff note that existing Oakridge/Langara zoning has the un-built
capacity to allow approximately 3,000 more people. Under existing
zoning, redevelopment would not be subject to DCLs or CACs, and would
not contribute towards additional public amenities such as daycare or
affordable housing. In addition, this development would provide only
.81 ha (2 ac.) of new park which compares to the City standard for park
requirements for 3,000 people of 3.4 ha (8.25 ac.).
2. How the City Typically Provides Public Benefits
The City has evolved several approaches to providing public benefits for
its residents. The three most common approaches are: the City and Park
Board Capital Plans, Major Project Development and Area Planning.
Capital Plans strive to ensure City standards for public facilities are
met city-wide, while also responding to new service demands arising from
a growing and changing population. Capital Plan funds come from
borrowed funds, cost sharing from senior government and the operating
budget. These city-wide, Capital Plan public benefits are financed, in
part, by all taxpayers.
The Major Projects approach recognizes that significant land values are
created when large scale redevelopment occurs (such as False Creek
North). These projects are mainly controlled by one landowner and
through the planning process they typically provide a full range of
public benefits that meet City standards. Many of these benefits are
fully funded by the developer.
Area planning generally involves redevelopment of numerous small sites,
with different landowners. CACs and DCLs are collected over time to
provide public benefits. Without CACs and DCLs, redevelopment may not
be required to provide any new public amenities. The area planning
approach analyzes existing amenities, area needs and the needs of the
new population. Public benefit items are costed and are typically
priorized or pro-rated as redevelopment contributions often do not cover
the full costs of these amenities.
A key difference between CACs and DCLs is that CACs can be used to fund
any public amenity anywhere Council specifies, where DCLs can only fund
expenditures for parks, daycare, replacement housing and infrastructure
(water, sewer and streets) within a designated area, except for
replacement housing which can be provided inside or outside the area.
In addition to these means of providing public amenities, there are a
number of other ways in which residents can be involved in increasing
neighbourhood amenity. Examples include Local Improvements, Community
Public Art, Artist in Residence Program, Neighbourhood Matching Fund,
Neighbourhood Greenways and Business Improvement Areas.
DISCUSSION
1. Oakridge/Langara Approach to Funding Public Benefits
The Oakridge/Langara Public Benefits Strategy integrates all of the
above approaches including in-kind provision of amenities, CACs,
area-wide DCLs, as well as potential future Capital Plan contributions.
The Policy Plan used City standards to set objectives and these have
been combined with the findings of a comprehensive community amenities
inventory and resident input to identify public benefit demands. The
analysis includes public benefit requirements resulting from
development contemplated by the Policy Statement, including the
increased demand on City infrastructure (water/sewer). The community
amenity inventory and public input process, allowed existing residents
to assist in the identification and prioritizing of required benefits
(Appendix B provides a summary of this methodology, complete
documentation of the Community Amenity Inventory and Public Involvement
is on file with the City Clerk ).
(a) Public Benefit Demands and Costs
Details of public benefit demands and costs are provided in Appendix C.
(i) Parks
The current Oakridge/Langara park supply is roughly equal to the City
standard of 1.1 ha/1,000 people (2.75 ac./1,000 people). When this
standard is applied, 6.5 ha (16 ac.) of new park space is required.
Several potential parks, as part of redevelopment sites, are identified
in the Policy Statement, totalling approximately 3.6 ha (9 ac.): the BC
Transit site, the Dogwood/Pearson sites and the Oakridge Shopping
Centre.
To meet the park standard 2.9 ha (7 ac.) of additional park must be
purchased. When the Policy Statement was approved, staff recommended
purchase of a 1.6 ha to 2.0 ha (4 ac. to 5 ac.) site on the Fraser
River, using DCLs or CACs. This site has come under litigation and Real
Estate staff advise the owner is now unwilling to sell. Staff have also
further analyzed and received public input on park needs in the area.
To maximize Park Board park purchase flexibility, staff recommend that
the park space total be divided equally between the residential area
north of Marine Drive and the industrial area south of Marine Drive.
Average land values north of Marine Drive of $8.36/m2 ($90/sq. ft.) and
$3.25/m2 ($35/sq. ft.) south of Marine Drive are used to estimate costs.
Acquisition of some waterfront park space is a recommended priority to
fulfil the Policy Statement direction and to create waterfront access
for the public. In addition, residents involved in the Public Benefits
Strategy process indicated strong support for upgrading of existing
parks, particularly for passive uses.
Estimated costs for parks are:
New Park Acquisition $19,100,000
New Park Development $ 3,000,000
Existing Park Upgrading $ 300,000
Total $22,400,000
(ii) Affordable Housing
Currently, 24% of area households qualify as requiring "core-need"
housing. Non-market housing represents 5% of existing housing stock.
The Policy Statement aims at increasing the range of housing types
available to accommodate a diversity of household types, and to increase
the supply of affordable housing through the provision of 20% non-market housing on redevelopment sites with over approximately 100 units. The
Policies also discourage redevelopment of existing affordable rental
housing near Oakridge Shopping Centre.
The City's DCL authority allows for replacement housing when it is
anticipated that, as a result of development, people will be displaced
and unable to afford comparable accommodation in the area. It is
expected that 127 existing affordable housing units could be
redeveloped, based on the age, condition and current density of these
apartments. As in other DCL areas, the replacement housing could be
provided in several ways. Is is assumed that provincial social housing
funding is available for 25% of the units and the City would lease land
to a non-profit society. The remaining 75% of the units are assumed to
be rental housing. This is similar to the approach taken in the City's
first DCL By-law in Downtown South where a portion of the replacement
housing funds were assumed to be targeted to rental housing. In
Oakridge-Langara, the DCL funds could be used to either acquire an
existinf rental building or acquire a site and build a new rental
building. The DCL funds would be used to ensure that the rents are
low-end of market and additional City funding would not be required.
Staff will be reporting back to provide an appropriate policy context
prior to any specific projects intended to secure rental housing. To
estimate 20% non-market housing costs, only large sites (BC Transit and
Pearson/Dogwood) were used. Staff expect that these units will be
provided on-site. Non-market housing may also be provided on other
sites such as the former Police Station site which is an active rezoning
application.
Estimated costs of affordable housing are:
Replacement housing - 127 units $ 7,500,000
20% Non-market Housing $ 7,600,000
Total $15,100,000
(iii) Childcare
Currently, there are 16 childcare facilities with over 500 spaces
located in Oakridge/Langara. Several are part-time nursery school
programs catering to special needs and specific cultural/ linguistic
groups from across the City. However, Social Planning advises that
based the current supply of childcare spaces, there is no immediate need
for additional facilities. Over time, this situation will change as new
residents arrive. If City-standards for daycare provision are applied
to the projected population from new development, an additional 73
daycare and 34 out-of-school care spaces are required. A new "Class A"
daycare and out-of-school facility is recommended as a medium-term,
10-15 year, priority.
Estimated cost of childcare facility is:
Land acquisition $1,400,000
Facility construction $1,600,000
Total $3,000,000
(iv) Walking Improvements and Traffic Calming
The Policy Statement identifies several general directions to improve
the pedestrian environment, especially on pedestrian collector routes.
Residents involved in the Public Benefits Strategy strongly supported
improving walking safety, comfort and convenience along non-arterial
streets, particularly Heather, Tisdall and Willow Streets. As these
improvements would be provided without a contribution from adjacent
residents it is not part of the neighbourhood Greenways program,
although it would certainly have greenway qualities. This would involve
provision of sidewalks, curb ramps where none exist and appropriate
traffic calming measures (including landscaping). Implementation will
involve resident participation in the design these improvements.
Estimated cost of walking improvements is:
Walking improvements to mainly
Heather/Tisdall/Willow - Total $1,000,000
(v) Other Public Benefits
In addition to the above public benefits, identified as priority items
for funding, other public benefits were considered in preparing this
Strategy. Some of these other benefits can be achieved within current
supply mechanisms, others need monitoring and future review before
implementation.
Infrastructure: The need for infrastructure upgrades due to the added
demand caused by new development was raised by the public as an issue
when Council considered the Policy Statement. Council requested the
report back address alternate approaches to recovering the cost of water
and sewer upgrades and possible phasing options to limit the rate of
development based on infrastructure capacity.
Currently, the City seeks developer contributions towards off site
servicing costs if existing infrastructure is inadequate to serve the
proposed rezoning requirements. This could include installation of a
new left turn bay, contribution towards a local improvement for pavement
and curbs to sidewalks, upgrading of a watermain to address fire demand,
or replacement of a sewer line. Developer contributions are normally
limited to the immediate, local increased effects of the rezoning
proposal on the adequacy of the infrastructure. They do not address
increased demand on the overall water supply, the need for sewage
treatment plant expansion or other city-wide growth impacts. City-wide
impacts are normally funded through debt financed Capital Budgets which
are repaid through the property tax or water rates. One exception,
currently being considered, is the GVRD's proposal to implement a
Regional Development Cost Charge for the growth component of sewage
treatment costs.
Under existing funding schemes, new developments also contribute toward
infrastructure expansion to the extent that they add to the property tax
base from which the debt charges for these new facilities are repaid.
This added tax base also contributes towards the maintenance and
replacement of existing infrastructure, sharing this burden with
existing residents.
Staff believe there is no justification to implement DCLs to fund basic
infrastructure expansion on a city-wide basis. Area DCLs should be
considered and used to fund the provision of specific amenities or
services to the area affected by development. Provision of basic
services such as sewer, water and transportation facilities to benefit
the City as a whole, should be provided through the City's normal
capital financing process, with repayment from taxes or user fees.
There is no need to phase development in Oakridge/langara to ensure
infrastructure keeps pace. Any local deficiencies in the water system
will be upgraded, at the time of construction. The sewer system is
generally adequate to serve the proposed level of development. The
overall increase in demand from the additional development in
Oakridge/Langara will not be significant on the broader, city-wide
scale.
Community Space: A need for community centre space was identified when
the Policy Statement was approved. When City-standards are applied
against the projected new population there is a need for an additional 1
230 m2 (13,300 sq. ft.) of community centre space. The community
facilities inventory found that when existing community centre space
(city-owned and other publicly-accessible space) is added, there is over
13 000 m2 (140,000 sq. ft.) of space available now. This includes the
approximately 3 700 m2 (40,000 sq. ft.) in the Marpole/Oakridge
Community Centre. There are also numerous other publicly-accessible
community spaces available within, and immediately adjacent to,
Oakridge/Langara. Residents involved in the Public Benefits Strategy
supported upgrading existing facilities rather than building new ones.
Park Board staff support this approach. It should be noted that the
Marpole/Oakridge Community Centre has recently been renovated and that
future additions can be addressed in future Capital Plans. In addition,
staff note that as new development proposals arise, the need for
community space can be re-evaluated.
Greenways and Bikeways: Three city-wide Greenways traverse
Oakridge/Langara, on 37th and 59th Avenues and on the Fraser River
foreshore. Detailed design is underway for the pilot city Greenway, the
Ridgeway on 37th Avenue, with implementation targeted for this year. It
will provide a significant new amenity to area residents. On 59th
Avenue, staff will negotiate Greenways streetscape treatments during the
rezoning process on adjacent redevelopment sites. Heather Street, from
the Off-Broadway Bike Route on 7th Avenue to the Ridgeway Greenway on
37th Avenue, will become a bike route later this year or early 1997,
linking Oakridge/Langara with the city bike routes. The walking
improvements along Heather/Tisdall/Willow Streets, proposed in this
Strategy, will create a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment linking
local schools, parks and shopping. These improvements will also enhance
the bicycling environment.
Public Art: There are several opportunities for public art to be
achieved in Oakridge/Langara. The city-wide Greenways program has
integrated public art into the greenway design process and as noted
above, this area is traversed by three such Greenways. Council has a
city-wide policy of seeking developer contributions, at a rate of
$10.23/m2 ($0.95/sq. ft.) on rezoning applications creating new floor
space greater than 15 000 m2 (161,463 sq. ft.) for public art. This is
consistent with economic analysis of development sites, described below,
which suggests the economic feasibility of providing a public benefit
contribution generally increases with site size. While smaller sites
would not be expected to contribute, some medium-sized sites could and
large sites should be able to contribute towards public art. In
addition, there are opportunities for involvement of a public artist in
the design process for public benefit projects such as walking
improvements and park upgrading.
Heritage: The only significant heritage resource located within an
identified Oakridge/Langara redevelopment site is on the Oakherst site.
This site has an active rezoning application and staff are recommending
retention of the "A" listed, heritage building and contextual
landscaping. If approved at Public Hearing, the CAC for this site would
consist of the heritage retention. This is consistent with the Policy
Statement objectives. The allocation of Oakherst's CAC to heritage does
not affect the overall public benefits supply approach because it
assumes that medium-sized sites, such as this, provide a small portion
of the overall CAC sum to be collected. This provides flexibility for
site-specific negotiations to occur without jeopardizing the overall
Strategy.
Neighbourhood House and Community Crime Prevention Office: Some
residents have expressed interest in developing community-based services
in Oakridge/Langara, including a Neighbourhood House and a Community
Crime Prevention Office. Based on the community facilities inventory,
staff conclude that small, incremental additions of community space
cannot be justified without a proven sponsor organization to provide
ongoing, cost-effective management. Police Department staff note that
this neighbourhood is a low-crime area within a low-crime district, when
compared to the rest of the city. However, the opportunity for
additional community space to be secured through future rezonings will
remain as redevelopment is expected to occur over the next 20 to 30
years. The need for this space will be subject to community-based
initiatives that demonstrate service needs and organizational
capability.
Indoor Pool: Residents have indicated the desire to have an indoor pool
in Oakridge/Langara. The Park Board Management Plan and more recently
the Outdoor Aquatics Taskforce addressed this issue. The Management
Plan indicates that if a new indoor aquatic facility were to be built
outside of the downtown peninsula, it would likely be sited in the
southeast quadrant of the city. The Outdoor Aquatics Taskforce
recommended that the Sunset pool be replaced with an new outdoor pool
and that the outdoor pool at Oak Park be eventually phased out.
School Space: Increased residential population puts additional pressure
on area schools and staff have worked with School Board staff to
identify impacts, noting that school facilities funding is a provincial
function. Staff projections suggest that over 20 to 30 years of
redevelopment, 300 to 400 school-aged children (6 to 18 years old),
might be generated. Staff will continue to work with School Board
staff, noting that student populations will vary with the pace and type
of development and age of students. Use of schools in all areas is also
affected by district programs and out-of-school catchment area students.
The School Board recently received Provincial approval to upgrade
Churchill Secondary School to build additional space for students now
using portables.
2. Summary of Estimated Public Benefit Costs
In summary, the estimated costs of public benefits are:
Benefit Item Estimated Cost
Park Purchase and Development $22,100,000
Existing Park Upgrading $ 300,000
Replacement Housing $ 7,500,000
20% Non-market Housing $ 7,600,000
Walking Improvements $ 1,000,000
Class "A" Daycare and $ 3,000,000
Out-of-School Care
Total Costs $41,500,000
Appendix D shows approximate locations of proposed public benefits.
3. Supply of Public Benefits
As noted earlier, there are three ways to supply public benefits from
area redevelopment: direct provision from development; CACs which apply
to rezonings; and DCLs which apply to all redevelopments. The Public
Benefits Strategy proposes an approach that blends all three. On sites
that could redevelop without rezoning (mainly in commercial-zoned areas)
only DCLs would apply. On small rezoning sites with limited
redevelopment potential it is likely only a DCL would apply, unless a
20% density bonus is requested in return for desired public benefits.
On larger sites where significant value is created through rezoning,
direct provision and/or CACs are anticipated, in addition to DCL
charges.
Three other City areas have DCL districts. The residential/ commercial
rates are: $66.52/m2 ($6.18/sq. ft.) in Downtown South; $53.82 m2
($5.00 sq. ft.) in Burrard Slopes; and $43.06 m2 ($4.00 sq. ft.) in the
Arbutus Neighbourhood. For Oakridge/Langara a levy of $34.98 m2 ($3.25
sq. ft.) is proposed for office, retail, service and residential uses.
Analysis conducted by Real Estate Services and an independent consultant
conclude that this charge is economically feasible by all potential
redevelopment sites. The estimated potential DCL funds collectable
(representing a 20- to 30-year build-out) are approximately $15,500,000.
CAC potential is more variable as it depends on a variety of market
forces and it is the result of rezoning negotiations. The estimated
potential CAC funds collectable are approximately $16,900,000.
The combined DCL and CAC potential is $32,400,000, or 78% of the
estimated $41,500,000 public benefits costs. Staff note that this is
based on a relatively conservative method of calculation as it assumes
that all sites achieve less than the full density provided for in the
Policy Statement. The shortfall in funding for public benefits is
typical of City experience in other redevelopment areas where there is
multiple ownership of development sites. DCL estimates for other
redevelopment areas have provided a range from approximately 40% to 80%
of estimated public benefit costs. Future Capital Plans may need to be
explored as a means to achieve full city standards for public amenities
in these areas. In contrast, ad hoc development in areas where CACs and
DCLs are not applied result in minimal developer contributions toward
public benefit needs.
Figure 1 below shows the proposed DCL boundary. The boundary differs
from the study area boundary as it excludes the Marpole RM district and
the industrial area south of Marine Drive. The Marpole RM district is
excluded because it does not contribute to the demands generated by new
development as it is largely built-out.
Figure 1. Proposed DCL Boundary
This area also contains a portion of the Hudson industrial "let-go"
area which will be subject to its own area planning program shortly.
The south of Marine Drive industrial area is excluded as it is subject
of a separate study arising from the Industrial Lands Strategy which may
consider separate DCLs.
4. Allocation of DCL and CAC Proceeds
Council must decide on the proportions for spending DCL proceeds before
a DCL by-law can be enacted. This must be expressed as a percentage of
the anticipated $15,500,000 DCL proceeds ad must be allocated to each
type of levy project. There are no similar restrictions on CACs.
Council may choose any allocations totalling 100% for DCLs.
Staff recommend that based on the demand analysis, Council allocate the
DCL and CAC proceeds on a pro-rated basis, proportional to the costs of
identified public benefits. However, staff note that when the pro-rated
approach is strictly applied it results in a significant reduction to
two of the smaller benefit items: Existing Park Upgrading and Walking
Improvements. Public involvement during preparation of the Policy
Statement and the Public Benefits Strategy indicated strong support for
these measures. Staff recommend modifying the pro-rated distribution so
that these items are fully funded. This deviation from a pro-rated
approach is not intended to set a precedent for other areas, as each
will have unique circumstances which influence benefit allocations. This approach would result in the following allocations:
Pro-rated* Allocation
Estimated Totals
DCL CAC Benefit Item Cost DCL and CAC
Park Purchase and $22,100,00 $ $ $16,200,000
Development 0 9,500,000 6,600,000 $
Existing Park Upgrading $ $ N/A 300,000
Replacement Housing 300,000 300,000 N/A $ 4,700,000
20% Non-Market Housing $ $ $ $ 7,400,000
Walking Improvements 7,500,000 4,700,000 7,400,000 $ 1,000,000
Class "A" Daycare and $ N/A N/A $ 2,900,000
Out-of-School Care 7,600,000 $ $
$ 1,000,000 2,900,000
1,000,000 N/A
$
3,000,000
Total Costs $41,500,00 $15,500,00 $16,900,00 $32,400,000
0 0 0
* Pro-rated allocations modified to fund Park Upgrading and Walking
Improvements at 100% of costs.
Council is required to identify DCL allocations expressed as a
percentage of DCL proceeds. Based on the proposed approach these are:
DCL Benefit Items Funds Allocated % Allocation
Park Purchase and Development $9,500,000 61
Existing Park Upgrading $ 300,000 2
Replacement Housing $4,700,000 30
Walking Improvements $1,000,000 7
Total Costs $15,500,000 100%
Overall, an estimated 78% of the full costs of all identified public
benefits can be covered by the anticipated DCL and CAC proceeds.
However, due to the distribution of benefit items between CACs and DCLs
the percent shortfall varies. Park purchase and development funding
from DCLs and CACs is 73% of costs. Park upgrading and walking
improvements funding from DCLs are funded at 100% of costs. Replacement
housing funding from DCLs is 63% of costs. The 20% non-market housing
funding and childcare funding from CACs are 97% of costs.
Council legally retains flexibility to change the DCL allocations in the
future, provided the funds continue to be spent on projects that are
required as a result of development in the DCL district. It is also
possible that the Charter authority could be expanded to allow spending
DCLs on other community facilities in the future. As the time frame for
the Public Benefits Strategy is 20 to 30 years, adjustments to respond
to new demands or changing priorities are likely.
Council should also be aware that the anticipated DCL and CAC proceeds
are a projection of what might reasonably be generated over the next 20
to 30 years. The actual amount collected might be higher or lower,
depending on redevelopment activity and market conditions.
5. Public Benefits Strategy Implementation
(a) Rezonings
The Public Benefits Strategy will used by staff to guide
privately-initiated, site-specific rezoning negotiations for desired
public benefits. Currently, there are four active rezoning applications
in Oakridge/Langara; the former Police Station Site, St. John Ambulance
site, the Oakherst site and 5650 Oak Street. Staff have advised
applicants of the general directions of the Public Benefits Strategy to
assist in rezoning negotiations. Staff note that with the exception of
the Oakherst site, all applicants are pursuing the maximum recommended
density, which will in turn, provide the maximum amount of public
benefits (in-kind or in-cash).
(b) Park Upgrades and Walking Improvements
Staff recommend that priority action be taken on two items, park
upgrading on Oak and Tisdall Parks and walking improvements on
Heather/Tisdall/Willow. Both projects need to involve area residents in
the detailed design process. These items are not overly expensive and
could provide tangible and immediate improvements to the neighbourhood
environment. While clearly linked to the needs of the new population
from redevelopment, these projects also provide benefits to existing
residents. Based on the current level of redevelopment activity, it
appears that sufficient DCL funds may be available within two or three
years to cover the $1,300,000 needed for these projects. Staff
recommend that the design phase for these projects begin as soon as
staff resources are available. If DCL funds are not available at
construction stage, staff recommend other funding sources, such as CACs,
be explored, to be repaid as DCLs become available.
(c) Waterfront Park Space
Staff recommend that Real Estate Services be instructed to secure new
park sites on the waterfront, south of Marine Drive, as a priority.
Waterfront park space was a key element of the Policy Statement's park
supply requirements. Due to the uncertainty regarding the Policy
Statement's preferred waterfront park site, other options should be
vigorously explored before all waterfront park space opportunities are
lost. The source of funds would be CACs, or the Property Endowment Fund
to be repaid, with interest, as CAC funds become available.
(d) Community Space
Staff recommend that community-based initiatives such as pursuit of a
Neighbourhood House or Community Crime Prevention Office be
acknowledged, noting that these projects require a significant and
prolonged commitment of community resources to be successful. Through
the redevelopment process flexibility is retained to respond to this
type of initiative on a site-by-site basis. Additional community centre
space could also be addressed through future Capital Plans.
(e) Schools
The increased population resulting from redevelopment will place
additional demands on schools in Oakridge/Langara. Staff are working
with the School Board to address future needs, noting that capital
planning for school facilities is a provincial jurisdiction.
(f) Traffic Management
The Public Benefits Strategy has been prepared in-tandem with a Traffic
Management Planning process. Traffic management planning has examined
traffic concerns related to existing conditions, and identified traffic
issues related to future redevelopment. A comprehensive set of traffic
measures has been developed and is reported to the Traffic Commission
separately.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Through preparation of the Policy Statement there was extensive public
input which focused on resident desires for public benefits. In
general, residents supported new development as long as amenities are
maintained. More affordable housing and a housing mix were also seen as
desirable. Public input into the Public Benefits Strategy included the
Neighbourhood Portraits Program, in which residents took photos or drew
images of what was most, and least, desirable in their neighbourhood.
These images were presented in March, 1996 at a two-day open house at
Oakridge Shopping Centre, a 4-day display and a community workshop at
Marpole/Oakridge Community Centre (see Appendix B for details). In May,
1996 a Draft Public Benefits Strategy Newsletter was distributed
throughout the neighbourhood. In addition, a DCL notification letter
was sent to all registered property owners and business operators.
Staff have received limited public comments on the Public Benefits
Strategy. Comments received affirm resident desires to ensure new
development pays its fair-share toward new amenities, to preserve
existing neighbourhood character and to address traffic concerns.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Public Benefits Strategy will have a positive impact on Council's
directions for social policy. It will make funds available to:
purchase, develop and enhance park space; to provide affordable housing;
to improve walking safety and convenience; and to provide additional
childcare facilities. Further enhancements to the neighbourhood
environment will occur through the city-wide Greenways and Bikeways
programs and through public benefits negotiated on a site-specific basis
through the redevelopment process.
PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS
The Director of Permits and Licenses notes that the proposed DCL area is
relatively large and could present a new workload for staff. In the
context of a previous DCL report, he recommended that the General
Managers of Community and Corporate Services report back on the staffing
implications of administering these types of programs as soon as
possible.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are several potential expenditures of DCL and CAC funds that may
arise in advance of sufficient funds being available. In cases where
land acquisition is at issue, Council has established an interim
financing source in the Property Endowment Fund and it is recommended
that this source continue to be used in relation to Oakridge/Langara.
For other expenditures required in advance of DCL or CAC funding,
alternative financing arrangements will be recommended at the time
project approvals are brought to Council.
Staff note that all expenditures from DCL and CAC funding require
specific Council approvals. Although no formal process for reviewing
these expenditures has been developed beyond individual project
approvals, it is the longer term intent to co-ordinate these approvals
with the approval process for other capital expenditures, including
those arising from the City s Capital Plans.
The provision of new or expanded public amenities from DCL or CAC
funding could create the need for ongoing operating costs to added to
the Operating Budget. These will be specifically identified as projects
are brought forward for approval. Many of these costs will be offset by
increased property tax revenue resulting from new development or
redevelopment. However, in some cases, additional funding from the
city-wide tax levy may be required.
CONCLUSION
The Public Benefits Strategy provides a comprehensive approach to the
provision of new public amenities in Oakridge/Langara. The approach
blends the use of DCLs and CACs (in-cash or in-kind) to ensure that new
development pays its fair-share toward public benefits to meet the
demands created by the new population.
In preparing this Strategy a new approach was taken that could be
applied in other similar programs. It involved residents in identifying
their preferences for public amenities and it provided a community
amenity inventory that allowed for an integration of City-standards with
resident preferences to ensure new amenities reflect actual needs and
are prioritized in a manner that best mitigates immediate impacts from
redevelopment and allows for long-term flexibility as new needs arise.
The Strategy provides a guide for staff to use in the assessment of
redevelopment proposals as they arise. It also provides residents with
some certainty as to the public amenities they will receive from new
development.
* * * * *