District of North Vancouver Proposed Community Amenity Contribution Policy June 2010 Coriolis Consulting Corp.

Starting Point CAC should be collected from rezonings. CAC pays for amenities needed to support densification. CAC should be predictable. Industry prefers fixed rate over site-by-site negotiation. Many DNV rezonings are from single detached… hard to assemble development sites and developers must pay premium.

Rezoning Categories Sites in designated Town Centre. Residential sites not in Town Centre, but designated for higher density in OCP. Change not contemplated in OCP, or from non-residential to residential.

Sites in Designated Town Centre Town Centre plan shows uses, densities, heights for each parcel. New zoning districts that provide base and bonus density. Bonus density requires CAC. CAC rate to be fixed for each Town Centre. Should be rezoned as part of plan adoption.

Sites Designated in OCP, Not in Town Centre Fixed rate for townhouse, low-rise apartment, high-rise apartment. Rate applies to new density. Rate must allow developers to pay some premium for land assembly. Based on financial analysis, proposal is: - Approximately $5 per sq.ft. for townhouses. - Approximately $20 per sq.ft. for apartments. Cash-in-lieu payments pooled to create amenities. Developers have option of negotiating CAC for each site.

Change in Use Outside Scope of OCP Or Non-Residential to Residential Negotiate site-by-site. CAC as percentage of lift in land value. CAC could be combination of on-site amenities or cash-in-lieu.

Stakeholder Responses Preference for fixed fee over negotiation. Proposed rates too high… need more money for land assembly. Rate should be linked to specific amenities plan and capital budget, not arbitrary… but some concern that DNV will make list too expensive. CACs should not be only source of funds… property taxes should also fund amenities. Consultation and education needed for property owners, not just developers, because of CAC impact on land values. Confirm that CAC is only amenity obligation.

CACs Versus Land Assembly Premium Case Study Assumptions: Site rezoning from SF (FSR 0.4) to APT (FSR 2.0). Site is 6 6,000 sq.ft. = 36,000 sq.ft. Assessed value of SF homes = $700,000 each ($4,200,000 total) before premium. Market value of rezoned apartment site = $90 per sq.ft. buildable (36,000 sq.ft. x 2.0 x $90 = $6,480,000). APT project = 72,000 sq.ft., say 80 units (160 people). 10 projects = 800 units, 1,600 people. Illustrative amenity package :  30 daycare spaces ($2,400,000)  Contribution to neighbourhood centre (15,000 sq.ft. x $500 x 25% = $1,875,000)  Open space ($1,000,000)  Public art ($300,000)  Library contribution ($1,000,000)  Streetscape, walkway, bikeway ($2,000,000) Total = $8,575,000 ($10,700 per unit)

CACs Versus Land Assembly Premium Case Study Continued CAC $5 per sq.ft. CAC $10 per sq.ft. CAC $15 per sq.ft. CAC $20 per sq.ft. APT site value$6,480,000 SF assessed value$4,200,000 Assembly premium $1,792,000 (43%) $1,504,000 (36%) $1,216,000 (29%) $928,000 (22%) Rezoning cost$200,000 CAC $288,000 ($3,600/unit) $576,000 ($7,200/unit) $864,000 ($10,800/unit) $1,152,000 ($14,400/unit) Total$6,480,000

CACs Versus Land Assembly Premium Case Study Continued CAC $5 per sq.ft. CAC $10 per sq.ft. CAC $15 per sq.ft. CAC $20 per sq.ft. Cost of illustrative amenities $8,575,000 CAC from 10 projects (1,600 people) $2,880,000$5,760,000$8,640,000$11,520,000