Carolanne Reynolds for West Vancouver Council

It is with great pleasure we note that Council has moved to the public input stage after deciding to establish a Community Benefit Policy about two years ago. We appreciate this opportunity to provide input during the drafting of the strategies and policy. This submission will be divided into two parts: general comments and then an addendum referring to the report itself.

We also commend Council for advocating earlier public notification of developments and applications according to the Development Procedures and assume this will include options for consideration as part of the community benefit package.

The process to develop a Community Benefit Policy started about two years ago and the staff memo (Council Report, File 05-1008-00, directed remarks with pagination below in Addendum) referred to advisory committees and the public for input before the summer break is comprehensive and provides a good basis for comment.

Part of the application process ought to include appraisals of the present value of a property and the change (sometimes referred to as the 'uplift'). This information must be part of the proposal details offered for public perusal, right from the beginning of the process. Citizen comment can then include opinions on the requested development (increased density, upzoning, and so on) along with community benefit offered residents in exchange for the increased value and change to the area.

Although the report has examples from other municipalities of $x per sq ft (which of course as a static amount varies the profit to the applicant), there was no mention of the uplift (percentages back to the residents/taxpayers) in Vancouver that I have mentioned to Council as a result of my research. Staff there said that the usual benefit to the City is 60 - 70% of the uplift. In fact, I was given an instance of 98% to the City. (This was unusual, but when a project's uplift is $100 to 300m, the applicant still clears $2 to 6m.) Note also that the Council Report indicates that in some situations Burnaby obtains 100% of the increase in land value as part of the community benefit. DWV ought to consider a percentage of the uplift also, perhaps a range depending on other contributions and amenities included.

After the uplift has been established (or parameters thereof), Council can present a spectrum of amenities, projects, benefits to the public to solicit their views and then make a decision on the community benefit package for the application/development. Having them available before the public hearing as the staff memo suggests is desirable.

To provide this delightful menu to choose from, please encourage the advisory committees and local groups (such as Streamkeepers, Friends of Cypress, Lighthouse Park Preservation Society, ratepayer and resident associations, arts/heritage/historical societies, Scouts and Guides, Cadets, SPCA, the Seniors' Centre Board) as well as the Library Board, the Museum and Archives, the Chamber of Commerce, the Police Board, and the Fire Department to submit lists of possible projects for the public's and Council's consideration. This could be suggested amenities with a range of costs to a 'top ten' of what the group would like to have.

Perhaps for anything of $100,000 difference or higher, there could be guidelines that the benefit package include portions involving something environmental (creeks, wetlands, parks), something for heritage/the arts/cultural pursuits (eg 5% toward public art, 10% to a Heritage Fund), something for youth/seniors/disabled, and maybe the rest for some specific landmark project. That way all aspects of West Vancouver life can be represented and augmented rather than narrow interests. The benefits and amenities for the people can be spread and shared widely and equitably. Grants, donations, and funding could also be tied to raising matching amounts.

The basic return to the community should be at least two thirds (net). It can be viewed as compensation to the community for the increased pressure, traffic, and use. Also it is only reasonable and fair that the opportunity of the increased value bestowed by the citizens from changing the established zoning or development guidelines for an area be shared. Council, on behalf of the community, is responsible for deciding what form the "compensation" for the zoning/development changes and the community's share of the benefits of the changes ought to take. This could include better facilities, more community space, improved quality of life (more parking comes to mind!), enhanced environment, and increased services at lower cost. Sponsorship of a cause (crisis, drop-in, or first aid centre?), a healthy watershed (sustainability and safety), and a boulevard/new park (including maintenance), as well as recreation/sports equipment and signs (municipal buildings, parks, so removed from District's budget) could be considered too. No doubt the taxpayers would be grateful for any measure or project that would enhance the community and/or lower the tax burden.

Certainly West Vancouverites will be eager and anxious to present a wish list of what they want for their community -- the more ideas the better. It's great to be extended the courtesy of being consulted and Council will surely reap an imaginative and extensive collection of positive recommendations to make West Vancouver an even more brightly shining place of excellence.

Thank you again for embarking on a policy of giving back something to the community in return for the advantages development and density give the owner thanks to the agreement of the municipality for the change. With established guidelines, the applicant knows what is expected and the residents share the profits -- win-win -- both parties get something they want. With a published list of community benefits, some developers may step up to the plate to provide some from the list already requested. They could even be pro-active and offer for example a much-needed post office in Dundarave for an additional storey on their building.

(top) Although mention is made of negotiating cmnty benefits wrt Evelyn Drive, no uplift figures were ever made public. Let us hope that as a result of this study and policy, uplift numbers will be de rigueur (whether provided by the developer and reviewed by the District, or calculated by the District itself).

(top) This is developed further later but amenities can be discussed in the absence of pre-determined contributions. We must also be careful wrt risk as an economic impediment, that it not be exaggerated to mask profit. Appraisers take that into consideration, as do realtors and developers in their calculations.

(just below) The second bullet states that the "Community Benefit Policy ... must not be an economic impediment" without making it clear what precisely is meant. Not only will any community benefit of any significance be an economic impediment to some degree or other, it is also entirely possible that some developments which impose hardship on parts of the community will not go ahead if Council requires sufficient community benefit to offset the hardships. This demonstrates that it is not only possible, but also correct and desirable that some developments be impeded because of the requirements to provide sufficient community benefits to make the development a net benefit to West Vancouver. It would therefore be appropriate to drop the language with respect to community benefit requirements being an impediment.

= There also appears to be a mistaken assumption that the current market value of land is unaffected by community benefit requirements and therefore limits the possibility of obtaining community benefits from some developments. Should Council decide to levy community benefit requirements on developments, the market value of the land will adjust to compensate for this additional factor.

Naturally we are in full agreement that proposed cmnty benefits should be presented for public information and comment prior to calling the Public Hearing as stated on p14, and to the initial list of appropriate projects "for consideration by Council, Advisory Committees, staff, and the public" (mentioned on p15), those committees, cmnty groups, and the public shd be invited to add and suggest more as well as modifications.

We are concerned about the statement "Council may wish to reduce or waive the requirement for public amenities ... if the provision of amenities would be a financial deterrent to development". We see no reason for this which cd be used as loophole. Would Council reduce tax rates if they were a financial deterrent? Would they reduce other development charges or fees? Why should the requirement for community benefits be subject to arbitrary waivers while other financial deterrents are not? This lack of consistency is not explained or justified. (See also our comments wrt page 8.)

As a corollary to the Community Benefit Policy, please make the benefits a condition of the upzoning. That is to say that if the community benefit is not completed or achieved, the upzoning is cancelled. To give you an example, one of the conditions or a benefit of the upzoning of the Sunset Highlands development from 36 single-family lots to 100 multifamily was an overpass to the highway. The development went bankrupt so the connection could not be built. Although the project was revived by another company, it was the taxpayers who had to pay for the overpass. Clearly it is not fair for an applicant to get the upzoning (increased value/assessment) partly on the basis of construction of the overpass and then the highway connection is not built but the upzoned development goes ahead -- and the taxpayer has to pay for the overpass!

Some have incorrectly characterised the Community Benefits Policy (which requires a portion of the increased property value derived directly from upzoning, known as uplift, to be contributed to the community) as a tax on development. This is wrong.

Firstly, the Community Benefits Policy on uplift only applies to developments that obtain a bonus of increased density. Developments within the OCP and zoning have no uplift and therefore can continue "untaxed".

If one wishes to view it in market terms, think of community benefit contribution as the sale price of the upzoning.

If the developer wants upzoning, he pays X for it. If he thinks he will make more money by paying X and getting the upzoning, he proceeds according. If he doesn't, he is free to proceed with his development without any upzoning (then there is no uplift and no payment under the proposed Community Benefit Policy that Carolanne supports).

Some have suggested that such a policy will cause the price of housing in West Vancouver to increase since the developer's profits will be reduced in situations in which an upzoning is obtained.

Since most housing sales and most housing development in West Vancouver occurs without uplift, the market price of housing is unlikely to be affected by the few units that are supplied through "purchased" density (i.e. uplift). If paying for something developers previously obtained free has any effect on pricing, it will be to drive down the speculative premium currently paid to property owners in anticipation of rezoning (cf. the deals cut with Evelyn property owners which specifically included an increased payment depending on the density bonus given the developer by Council).

Many other communities, most notably the City of Vancouver, have successfully implemented community benefit policies without any obvious detrimental effect on development.

In short, why Council should be giving away "product" (i.e. density) free when it clearly has a market value?