Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CIS Agenda - 2022-06-08
1 KiTc�ivER Community and Infrastructure Services Committee Agenda Wednesday, June 8, 2022, 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Electronic Meeting Beginning March 1, 2022, the City of Kitchener has aligned with provincial changes to COVID-19 restrictions and City Hall is now open for in person services, but appointments are still being encouraged. The City remains committed to safety of our patrons and staff and continue to facilitate electronic meeting participation for members of the public. Those people interested in participating in this meeting can register to participate electronically by completing the online delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation @kitchener.ca. For those who are interested in accessing the meeting live -stream video it is available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. Please refer to the delegations section on the agenda below for registration deadlines. Written comments will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair: Councillor S. Marsh Vice -Chair: Councillor D. Schnider Pages 1. Commencement 2. Consent Items The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance with the recommendation contained in each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed as under this section. 2.1. Noise Exemption - Bingemans - I Heart Beer Festival, CSD -2022-262 3 3. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. Delegates must register by 2:00 p.m. on June 8, 2022, in order to participate electronically. 3.1. Places and Spaces - Park Strategic Plan and Park Dedication Update - INS -2022-224, listed as Item 4.1 3.1.a. Peggy Nickels 4. Discussion Items 4.1. Places and Spaces - Park Strategic Plan and 90 m 5 Park Dedication Update, INS -2022-224 (Staff will provide a 10 -minute presentation on this matter.) 4.2. Growth Related Funding Tools - Cumulative 45 m 255 Impact Assessment, DSD -2022-281 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.) 4.3. Implementation of New Consolidated Linear 20 m 314 Infrastructure Environmental Compliance Approval (CLI -ECA) Regulations for Sanitary and Stormwater Infrastructure, INS -2022-278 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.) 5. Information Items 5.1. None. 6. Adjournment Sarah Goldrup Committee Administrator Page 2 of 317 'Staff Report r,. i11k Community Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 8, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Gloria MacNeil, Director of Enforcement, 519-741-2200 ext. 7952 PREPARED BY: Gloria MacNeil, Director of Enforcement, 519-741-2200 ext. 7952 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward(1) DATE OF REPORT: May 16, 2022 REPORT NO.: CSD -2022-262 SUBJECT: NOISE EXEMPTION — BINGEMANS — I HEART BEER FESTIVAL RECOMMENDATION: That an exemption to Chapter 450 (Noise) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code be granted to Bingemans on June 23, 24, 2022 for the I Heart Beer Festival being held at 425 Bingeman Centre Drive, as outlined in CSD -2022-262. This exemption is subject to the following conditions, which if not complied with, will render the noise exemption null and void: a) There shall be no offensive language, in the opinion of City staff, generated from the music events, audible in any adjacent residential neighbourhood; b) The event organizers will ensure that there is an on-site contact person accessible to correspond with City staff at all times during the event(s); c) The event organizers agree to respond accordingly to requests from City staff, during the event(s), in order to address community concerns that may arise with regard to the impact of noise heard within adjacent residential areas. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to seek a noise exemption for the I Heart Beer Festival being held at Bingemans on June 23, 24, 2022. • This event will include amplified sound and will include the following genre of music - June 23, 2022 country music and June 24, 2022 oldies. • This event will also include a fireworks display both evenings. BACKGROUND: The I Heart Beer Festival will take place at Bingemans this year over the weekend of June 23 and 24th. This will be a licensed event with food, drinks and live music being played. The organizer is requesting a noise exemption on Friday June 23rd from 5pm — 11pm and on Saturday June 24, 2022 from 2pm to 10:30pm. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 3 of 317 REPORT: The I Heart Beer Festival is hosting their first annual Great Ontario Beer Festival at Bingemans on June 24th from 5pm — 11 pm and on June 25th from 2pm to 10:30pm and will feature over 30 Ontario breweries, cideries and distilleries. The anticipated number of attendees is approximately 2,000 people on Friday and 3,000 on Saturday. The event will have live amplified music, June 24th will be country themed and June 25th will be oldies music. In addition to food and drink, this event will have several charity driven activities including axe throwing, dunk the brewer, an empties drive, etc. as their goal is to raise $15,000.00 for local Ontario charities this year. There will also be a fireworks display taking place both nights to end the evening, Friday's display will take place at 10:45pm and Saturday's at 10:15pm. The event organizer is working with Kitchener Fire Department on obtaining the required permissions and permits for the fireworks display. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. The event organizer is responsible for ensuring that this event is communicated throughout the community in advance of the event. APPROVED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department Page 4 of 317 ,Staff Report J 1' TC;HENER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 8, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Niall Lobley, Director of Parks & Cemeteries, 519-741-2600 ext. 4518 PREPARED BY: Mark Parris, Landscape Architect, 519-741-2600 x4397 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards DATE OF REPORT: May 26, 2022 REPORT NO.: INS -2022-224 SUBJECT: Places & Spaces — Park Strategic Plan and Park Dedication Update RECOMMENDATION: That Spaces be approved and recognized as the City's Parks Plan pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act; and, That the updated Park Dedication By -Law Chapter 273 and Park Dedication Policy be approved in the form shown in "Proposed Park Dedication By -Law (2022)" and "Proposed Park Dedication Policy (2022)", attached to staff report INS -2022-224 as Attachment "C" and Attachment "D"; and, That staff be directed to work with the school boards to explore shared use agreements that provide for a common understanding of where public use can be supported on existing school board lands, and where school board use of public parks may occur; and, That staff be directed to continue to work with agencies such as Kitchener Wilmot Hydro and Hydro One in managing areas of transmission corridors to support and link a planned park and open space system, and continue to work with partners such as Chicopee Ski Hill and the Grand River Conservation Authority to enhance the City's parks and open space system; and, That staff be directed to identify specific properties of interest for acquisition or repurpose (in the event lands are identified that are in public ownership) to address identified Critical Needs Areas and bring these forward when opportunities exist to Council; and further, That staff be directed to incorporate relevant directions from Spaces into the City's Official Plan though its next review. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 5 of 317 ,Staff Report J 1' TC;HENER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • This report compiles and presents the documents necessary to complete the first stage of the City's updated Open Space Strategy (named Places & Spaces), and update the City's Park Dedication By -Law and Policy Documents • The financial implications are indirect capital funding impacts by excluding the use of the Parkland Reserve within the capital forecast. • Community engagement included direct stakeholder and legislatively required consultation, public surveys, statistically valid surveys, public information centres and a comprehensive promotion and outreach strategy including presence in community centres and city facilities, mobile advertisements and social media promotion. • This report supports A Caring Community by completing an Open Space Strategy. INTRODUCTION It is estimated that at least 22 million visits are made to parks and open spaces in the City each year, making parks one of the most well used and free -to -access recreational resources in the City. Parks and open spaces are vital; no specialized equipment is needed to access them, and their unique location in the heart of each community makes these spaces critical to supporting local residents and building a sense of community and connection. They are the areas that people go to recharge, relax, celebrate, recreate and connect with others; they are for the young, the young at heart, and everyone in between; they act as areas for stormwater absorption, they help clean the air, cool the city and support a diversity of wildlife, and are a vital habitat connection across the City for that wildlife. Parks and open spaces are fundamental city -building blocks, treasured and valued by community. Spaces is the first part of a comprehensive review and revision of the former Parks Strategic Plan, called Places & Spaces: A Parks and Open Spaces Strategy for Kitchener. In it, Kitchener explores where we have parks, the types of parks we have and the other types of land that form part of a connected system of parks and open spaces. Spaces explores the partnerships and potential for growth in the park and open space system, and how in a changing city, parks and open space provisions need to evolve and change. It identifies the need for equity in park provision and seeks to direct prioritization of future investment in spaces for parks. Spaces connects expectations of how much park land the City has, will have, and can achieve with the tools that create those lands. Spaces forms the `Parks Plan' defined in the Planning Act that informs a Park Dedication By -Law, which is one of the principal tools toward achieving Spaces. The evolution reflected in Spaces is responsive to the changing needs of a city and is informed by an extensive engagement and consultation program. While the plan addresses *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 6 of 317 ,Staff Report J 1' TC;HENER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca all parks and open spaces, it centres on the vital role of the Local Park; parks embedded in community and neighbourhoods, as the core component of a much wider system. It looks to our partners as key stakeholders in developing a parks and open space system and it seeks to address the pressures that community and residents have raised in respect to park provision. BACKGROUND: Kitchener's Strategic Plan (2019-2022) identifies within `Caring Community' the desire to complete an Open Space Strategy. The existing Parks Strategic Plan (2010) requires review and update. In Spaces, Kitchener will seek to deliver an equity based, community focused plan that responds to the needs of a rapidly changing and developing City; that builds on existing plans and strengthens community links to parks by facilitating placemaking in parks and open spaces. Spaces is the City's Parks Plan (under the Planning Act) and will provide the context and direction to support a revised Park Dedication Bylaw. Places will be completed in 2023. Spaces has been informed by Council, stakeholder and community engagement, including school boards, and consultation, and work is ongoing in respect to engagement on Places. Places and Spaces — a Parks and Open Space Strategy for the City of Kitchener Places and Spaces is the title for this new plan; it reflects the fact that the Spaces that we have in parks and open space across the City are important parts of building Place — at a range of levels, place making for the City, and place making at a neighbourhood level. Places Places reflects a strategic context for what community outcomes are served by parks and open spaces and how we, as a city, will look to build and shape parks and open spaces to meet these outcome needs. Spaces Spaces focuses on the location and amount of parks today and in the future, provides strategic context and priorities for securing new parks. It considers currently underserved areas, growth forecasts and use of an equity lens to prioritise park acquisition. Key within this document is a consideration of classifying parks and open spaces, a discussion on form and function of different spaces, and establishing parks provision targets. Spaces will provide a stand alone plan that will inform the Park Dedication By -Law and policy and will be developed to meet the requirements of a `Parks Plan' under the Planning Act. Park Dedication Park dedication is administered and applied through two primary documents — the Park Dedication By -Law (Chapter 273), and Park Dedication Policy (2012). The Park Dedication By -Law provides the legal basis for the City to require park or cash -in -lieu as a condition of *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 7of317 ,Staff Report J 1' TC;HENER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca development. The Policy provides guidance to staff, developers and other stakeholders on how the By -Law is to be applied. Through changes to a variety of planning legislative tools implemented under the Omnibus Bill 197 which became the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, Council must review and pass a new Park Dedication By -Law no later than September 2022. In the event that no new By -Law is in place, the City will cease being able to collect meaningful park or cash in lieu through residential intensification projects in particular. The Park Dedication By -Law is subject to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), and Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)). Previous park dedication by-laws were not subject to appeal. Spaces & Park Dedication The Park Dedication By -Law must be supported by a `Parks Plan'. Spaces has been developed to function as the Parks Plan under provincial policy to directly inform the Park Dedication By -Law and Policy updates. As a result of the timelines imposed by the Province, Spaces was prioritized and developed to be presented to Council independently and alongside a revised Park Dedication By -Law and Policy. REPORT: The fundamental approach to Spaces is to connect expectations of park land with the tools that create them. The City can set park land targets however we choose, but if they are not grounded within sustainable and realistic methods, they will never be achievable. This connection is done by understanding the City's current inventory and park acquisition tools in place now, to act as the boundaries within which targets can be set and acquisition tools updated to achieve those targets. The result is a Parks Plan that supports the principles of the Park Dedication By -Law and Policy, and policy documents that in -turn support the key directions of the Parks Plan. Further details are highlighted in the Executive Summary within the Spaces report, Attachment "B". The intent of this Staff Report is to provide the key findings of Spaces and summarize the changes to the Park Dedication By -Law and Policy that support Spaces, address the logistics of implementation, and outline mitigations to potential impacts on the development community as the documents are rolled out. It should be noted that the City relies almost exclusively on the park dedication process to create its park properties. Adjustments and mitigations listed below directly impact the ability, or the timing, of pursuing park land acquisitions. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 8 of 317 ,Staff Report J t�T�;r�rER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca Key Findings of Spaces: • Establishes a target of providing 10 square meters of local park per person across the City, maintaining the current average provision • Identifies that Local Park provision is not equitably spread and introduces a prioritization for addressing equity in park provision. Nine areas of Critical Need based on current and future local park needs are identified. • Approximately 28ha of additional local park space is required to meet objectives within the highest needs communities over the next 20 years. Approximately 16ha will be generated through land dedication associated with development and 12ha will need to be identified and secured by the City. • Recognizes a growing and changing city and that: o Local park needs can be met in a variety of ways, as well as through the provision of traditional publicly owned parks o Local park provision must be balanced with wider community environmental and sustainability objectives o The need to ensure that local park needs do not conflict with other priorities of the City, such as creating affordable housing Summary of Park Dedication Changes Principles of Park Dedication In the process of refreshing and introducing new policies on Park Dedication, guiding principles are employed that shape the intent of the By -Law and Policy documents: 1. All development impacts the communities living and working in Kitchener. Public park space is intended for use by all communities in Kitchener, whether living or working in the City, and is vital to supporting complete communities. Public park space is focused on areas where public use and access to it is the highest need — typically in residential areas. As a result, all development should contribute toward the provision of public park space, but the nature of some development should contribute more significantly. 2. Park land will be evaluated based on a metric of square meters per resident, which both targets and policy guidelines will unify under. 3. In all circumstances park dedication in the form of land is preferred over alternative forms of dedication, such as cash -in -lieu of land. 4. Plans of subdivision must yield developable land for park purposes with no constraints to active park use and the provision of park facilities, unless otherwise determined by the City. 5. Infill development, or development within identified park land deficient communities, must make every effort to provide public park land where park land is deemed necessary by the City. Significant Updates and Revisions *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 9 of 317 ,Staff Report J 1' TC;HENER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca The revised Park Dedication By-law is provided in Attachment "C" and the key changes are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: Current By- Revision Impact Law/Policy Developments within Exemption removed All developments within the Downtown the Downtown Community boundary will now be Kitchener Community subject to updated park dedication Area are exempt requirements. from park land dedication requirements Cash -in -lieu of land Updated market values Highest valuation category increased valuations based on and land use from $2,718 (Multiple Residential use) to 2010/12 market categories reflecting $11,862 per residential unit (Capped values fixed within today's development High Density Residential, 10+FSI). the Policy environment Average land value increased approximately 300-400% as a single correction to a 10-12 year policy stagnation Park land taken Land requirement Typical 5% dedication yields through Subdivision increased to the lesser approximately 4 to 7 square meters per capped at 5% of of 10 square meters person. Increasing targets in subdivision eligible land area per resident or 1 match the overall target provision and hectare per 300 units current average local park supply. (provincial max.) All development is Updated to include a Re -aligns with Planning Act clause to exempt from park critical statement allow for further dedication under these land dedication if "unless there is an conditions maximum park increase of dwelling dedication had units or change in use" previously been collected NEW Off-site land as park A tool intended to provide options for dedication developments that otherwise cannot provide land for public park uses within the boundaries of development. Lands dedicated off-site must: *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 10 of 317 ,Staff Report J 1' TC;HENER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca Development Impact Analysis N. Barry Lyon Consultants (NBLC) were retained to complete a comprehensive evaluation of multiple policy changes on the financial viability of new residential development. The analysis considered all iterations including: • Community Benefits Charge (new) — 4% of land value that replaces development bonusing agreements • Development Charges (updated) • Park Land Dedication (updated) — cash -in -lieu of park land updated appraisal values • Inclusionary Zoning (new) — placeholder policy requiring that 5% of development floor area be sold or rented at below market rates. The report is presented and summarized through Staff Report DSD -2022-281 - Growth Related Funding Tools — Cumulative Impact Assessment. Staff have incorporated many of the recommendations of the NBLC report into the Park Dedication By -Law, which are reflected in the following section. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 11 of 317 • Be mutually agreed upon by both the City and Developer. • Follow the same requirements as on-site land. • Be within a maximum distance of the development and within the boundaries of its' community. NEW All non-residential Non-residential developments generate developments will be approximately 6% of the total cash -in - exempt from park land lieu contribution. This proportion is dedication expected to decline significantly as the requirements Downtown exemption is removed and land valuations are updated to current market values. NEW Affordable Housing Supportive Housing will be exempt from developments will be park dedication requirements, and exempt or reduced affordable rental housing will be reduced to 5% land area maximums. NEW Privately Owned Public Privately owned public spaces are not Spaces are eligible for public park land but do contribute value up to 25% credit as an alternative open space, a principle towards park established within Spaces dedication requirement Development Impact Analysis N. Barry Lyon Consultants (NBLC) were retained to complete a comprehensive evaluation of multiple policy changes on the financial viability of new residential development. The analysis considered all iterations including: • Community Benefits Charge (new) — 4% of land value that replaces development bonusing agreements • Development Charges (updated) • Park Land Dedication (updated) — cash -in -lieu of park land updated appraisal values • Inclusionary Zoning (new) — placeholder policy requiring that 5% of development floor area be sold or rented at below market rates. The report is presented and summarized through Staff Report DSD -2022-281 - Growth Related Funding Tools — Cumulative Impact Assessment. Staff have incorporated many of the recommendations of the NBLC report into the Park Dedication By -Law, which are reflected in the following section. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 11 of 317 ,Staff Report J t�T�;r�rER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca Park Dedication Adjustments To address the concerns that developers have raised and that have been supported through the NBLC report, staff are recommending in the By -Law a number of tools to support implementation, while seeking to ensure no negative and significant impacts to development in the City which could further constrain housing supply and result in unintended negative impacts. Land is always preferred In all circumstances, if suitable land for local park provision can be identified that has a direct nexus to the development proposal, land will always be preferred over cash in lieu. To further enhance the ability for the development industry to work with the City in meeting park needs of communities, and recognizing that in infill development especially, functional local park space is rarely achievable, staff are recommending an approach where off site land could be recognised as park dedication, within strict limitations that ensure the off site lands are close enough to the development to meet the needs of the local community. Dedicating off site lands may reflect an ability for a developer to reduce costs; they may be able to secure land at a lower cost than the cash in lieu of land fee would be under park dedication. Individual appraisals The City has relied on a book valuation approach to park dedication for many years, and through Spaces and the revised Park Dedication By -Law, recommit to this approach. Staff are confident that this approach provides for cost certainty to the development industry, budget predictability for the City and an easily understood, reliable approach to park dedication. However, it is an approach which is driven by averages and as such will eliminate extremes of the market. It is important that developers retain the ability to challenge the land value assumptions within book valuations by seeking site-specific appraisals which would reflect an alternative park dedication rate. If a developer feels that the land value assessment that the City has recommended is too high, and results in too high a park dedication requirement, this can be reviewed through an individual appraisal process. Commitment to bi-annual reviews Through the park dedication policy, a market evaluation and revised park dedication rates will be undertaken at least once every 2 years. This will ensure that as market changes continue, park dedication rates for cash -in -lieu will adjust accordingly. If land values are depressed, then park dedication rates will decrease; as the market grows, park dedication will grow. This will prevent future need for significant corrections in either market scenario. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 12 of 317 ,Staff Report J 1' TC;HENER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca Capped rates Staff are recommending a capped park dedication rate. This is a fixed maximum rate that will not be exceeded regardless of development type. Staff are suggesting the rate be linked to the mid -density threshold at $11,862 per unit. This cap rate means that higher density developments (2 FSR and above) will generally have a reduced fixed per unit cost of park dedication. In the highest value land markets and in the highest density development, this reflects a significant discount from the full, legislated maximum rate of park dedication. Transitional Arrangements The above tools are embedded within the By -Law that provide developers with a range of ways to meet park dedication requirements in a fiscally responsible way and to ensure that the City's policy on park dedication remains reflective of contemporary market pressures. However, many developments that are at an advanced stage of planning and financial commitment could be subjected to a new By -Law as they have not yet reached full Approval in Principle. In these instances, the development proforma is based on the existing Park Dedication By -Law and could be subject to a sudden and significant increase in park dedication fees. This impact would be significant, and it is understood that such a magnitude of change would result in developments becoming financially unfeasible and ceasing. Many of these development projects have already committed to public benefit, through bonusing arrangements, affordable housing commitments, or under the terms of the existing park dedication By -Law. Staff are recommending a transitional arrangement that would provide room for developments that are already under review and have received commentary by the City to continue to be reviewed under the terms of the existing Park Dedication By -Law for up to one year. All new developments would be considered under the new By -Law after its adoption; this transition would only apply to developments already under application to the City. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports A Caring Community by completing an Open Space Strategy. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no direct capital or operating budget impacts based on this report. Use of Cash -in -lieu of Park Land Dedication *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 13 of 317 ,Staff Report J t�T�;r�rER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca Discontinuing the use of Parkland Reserve fund within growth related capital project funding for the 2023 budget cycle and beyond will create a $11,387,000 funding gap within the 2022- 2031 capital forecast. Adjustments to Development Charge allocations (moving many park developments funded through development charges from a 90% to 100% funded basis), to be addressed in the 2023-2032 budget planning cycle and it is believed will completely offset this funding gap. Transition Impacts Across the City, there are currently approximately 20,000 dwelling units that are under review with current development applications that are deemed as complete in accordance with the Planning Act and are not yet approved or constructed. Approximately 30% of these units are within plans of subdivision in future communities where park land contribution will be taken as land through the subdivision processes for future local parks. Approximately 25% of the units under review are currently exempt from park land dedication. If the new park land dedication rate was applied to these developments, an additional $56.8M of park land dedication funding could be expected. Similarly, 45% of dwelling units under review are subject to park land dedication at the current rates. If the new rate was applied to these units, there would be an additional $66.5M in park land funding. Staff are recommending the current park land dedication rates (or exemptions) for any development or redevelopment where, on the day before the effective date, pursuant to the Planning Act, a complete application has been submitted for one or more of the following applications; Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan, Vacant Land Condominium, Subdivision, or Consent. The same development or redevelopment must receive one of the following within 12 months of the effective date of the by-law to be eligible for the proposed transitions policies; Final Site Plan Approval, Draft Plan approval for Subdivision, Draft Plan approval Vacant Land Condominium, or Provisional Consent. Finally, staff are recommending suspending the 12 month timeframe noted above where an appeal is filed for any application by a third party (not the applicant), and the 12 month timeframe would resume when an appeal is withdrawn or finally disposed of. Projecting Cash -in -lieu of Land Predicting revenue generated from the updated Park Dedication By -Law is an inexact science. The potential revenue is linked to development and land values, both of which are subject to variabilities of timing and market demands. However, staff believe that the park needs within the nine critical areas can be realistically achieved and the community objective rates met within these areas by using the revenue generated from the Park Dedication By - Law, assuming that new park land is secured within a similar market to the fees collected to generate that land. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 14 of 317 ,Staff Report J 1' TC;HENER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca Staff note that there will be a lag between an updated By -Law being implemented and fees being collected. Park dedication is calculated and agreed through the site plan process but adjusted for amendments to the development and collected prior to building permit. It is not unusual for this period between agreement and permit to extend for up to three years. Therefore, with the impacts of a transitional arrangement, and delays between fees being agreed and collected, staff believe the financial impact to increased revenues to the Park Reserve of the new By -Law will likely not be seen for at least 3 years and likely 5 or more years. While fees collected will be reflective of the market conditions at the time due to the biannual review and adjustment of dedication rates, and therefore cash in lieu collected will be reflective of the cost of land to purchase, there will always be a lag between the City collecting cash, and investing it into land for new local parks. In a rapidly escalating land market, the buying power of this cash is diminished over time. If the market continues to rapidly grow and suitable land for park space cannot be identified and negotiated for purchase in a timely manner, it is likely that the cash collected will be insufficient to meet the targets and community objective rates embedded within Spaces. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. Summary versions of Spaces have been made available in Arabic, French, Spanish and Serbian. All documents posted to Engage Kitchener have been externally converted into fully accessible formats. CONSULT — A full consultation summary is provided within the Spaces document, with consultation milestones listed below: • August 23, 2021 — Council Strategic Session through INS -2021-005 • October 2021 —direct feedback from City Councillors (10) • October 2021 — consultation with School Board representatives (Catholic, Public and French) • November 2021 — direct feedback from development community representatives (11) • November 16-17, 2021 — Public Information Sessions presenting initial findings of Spaces (2 PIC's) • December 2021 — Statistically valid survey conducted by third party research group (502 participants) • November to January 2022 — EngageKitchener platform public survey (1,176 participants) • January 2022 — Presentation to Kitchener Development Liaison Committee • April 2022 — Spaces document and public summary posted to EngageKitchener and circulated to City Councillors • April 8, 2022 — Follow up Presentation to Kitchener Development Liaison Committee *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 15 of 317 ,Staff Report J t�T�;r�rER Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca • April 2022 — Summary of Park Dedication By -Law and Policy posted to EngageKitchener and circulated to development community • May 12, 2022 — Final Public Information session presenting complete findings of Spaces (1 PIC) • May 13, 2022 — Final Presentation to Kitchener Development Liaison Committee • May 19, 23, 2022 — Final Feedback from City Councillors (7) • May 27, 2022 — Final documents — Spaces, By -Law, Policy and Staff Report — posted to EngageKitchener and circulated to development community PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: INS -2021-005 -_Places & Spaces: A Parks & Open Space Strategy for Kitchener DSD -2022-281 -Growth Related FundingTools— Cumulative Impact Assessment Planning Act REVIEWED BY: Niall Lobley, Director of Parks and Cemeteries Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy and Research Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning Tim Donegani, Senior Planner APPROVED BY: Denise McGoldrick, General Manager, Infrastructure Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Places & Spaces: Parks Strategic Plan Attachment B — Spaces Attachment C — Proposed Park Dedication By -Law (2022) Attachment D — Proposed Park Dedication Policy (2022) Attachment E — Commentary from Waterloo Region Homebuilders Association and Staff Response *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 16 of 317 r PLACES SPACES City of Kitchener Parks Strategy 1 rs �1 R Y,J�MNFR ter:, s -rr T r ' 1 • x PLACES SPACES City of Kitchener Parks Strategy 1 rs �1 R Y,J�MNFR Introduction In 2010 the City of Kitchener authored and endorsed the Parks Strategic Plan. The plan was developed over two years and sought to direct the City's investments and initiatives in the future planning, design, acquisition, improvement, management, programming and use of City parks. The plan called for a comprehensive review and update in 2020 to ensure the plan is "recast to reflect the consideration of the time period" Places & Spaces is that update, and will be Kitchener's Park strategy. It is the recasting of the parks plan to better reflect current demands of park space. It will re-evaluate all aspects of parks delivery in Kitchener down to the fundamental level - what makes a quality park in Kitchener? The strategy does not stand in isolation. It will draw support from a wide range of strategies including but not limited to the Leisure Facilities Master Plan (2019), the Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020), Kitchener Growth Management Plan (2019-2021), Kitchener Development Manual (2021), Stormwater Master Plan (2016), Kitchener Urban Forest Strategy (2019), and the City's Corporate Strategic Plan (2019) Acknowledgments Places & Spaces will be a document focused on parkland and the park service provided to the Kitchener community. Our parks are integral to communities, providing spaces that people connect with the environment within, share space together, play and build connections. The City is in a unique position to be able to provide, care for, maintain and secure public access to parks and open spaces to all members of its communities. The City of Kitchener recognizes these public spaces are planned and built on land that is the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee Peoples. Land ownership in Canada is one of great challenge and fraught with broken promises between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. We recognize our responsibility to serve as stewards for the land and honour the original caretakers who came before us. Our community is enriched by the enduring knowledge and deep rooted traditions of the diverse First Nations, Metis and Inuit in Kitchener today. The significance of this land to Indigenous communities will be respected and the vital role that parks and open spaces can play in Reconciliation is valued and will be reflected in Places and Spaces. This document does not address ownership of these public spaces. The City holds these lands for, and on behalf of, the community that calls Kitchener home and stewards almost 2,000 hectares of land as part of a parks and open spaces system. Through the development of this document, the City hopes to better understand and address community needs and barriers to use of these spaces, with a goal to ensure all communities in Kitchener can feel welcome, safe and able to use parks and open spaces. City of Kitchener Foundations e Vision Parks are important. This is a simple yet profound statement, and one that is recognized notjust in Kitchener but cities everywhere. It is critical to understand their value in urban systems including ecological preservation, health and wellness support, and providing significant economic benefits. Kitchener's system of parks, open spaces, natural areas, greenways and trails account for over 14% of the total land area within the City boundary in over 500 parks and 1,900 hectares of land. Those parks contain some of the most iconic landscapes found within the City and Region, as well as significant natural preservation lands. Parks are more than the sum of their parts. They may appear as simple grassed locations with playgrounds, trees, trails, benches and so on. However, they provide places for people to gather, unwind, exercise, socialize, play, celebrate, and enjoy. They are places to reconnect with the outdoors and the natural world. They are extensions of communities and contribute significantly to the community's identity and the individuals' connections within it. They contribute to the ecological and environmental functions within our city. They aide to reduce heat island effects, provide areas of stormwater infiltration, and establish habitat and food sources for various species. These values were all key concepts of the 2010 Parks Strategic Plan and evident in the decade since its completion. City of Kitchener Purpose & Structure Places and Spaces is an update to the existing Parks Strategic Plan adopted by City Council in 2010. More critically, the purpose of this document is to: 1. Re -affirm Kitchener's vision and commitment to building and maintaining public parks; 2. Provide guiding principles and policy themes to inform future park development; and 3. Update the process of park acquisitions. The title also lends itself to the structure of the document - a two parts as follows: Places Places looks at the quality of park space and provides a vision for parks in Kitchener. Places is be aimed at placemaking and creating diverse and functional spaces. Places is presented in a series of policy statements exploring a wide range of themes in parks, including principles of design (e.g. equity, accessibility), environment & ecology (e.g. habitat, stormwater and climate change), and specific infrastructure planning (e.g. playgrounds, sportsfields, pets in parks). Spaces Where Places looks at the quality of park space, Spaces explores the quantity of parks in Kitchener, and the context of parks within the City. It details Kitchener's current park inventory, looks at the definitions of park space, determines the amount of park space we need and where, and provides or updates the tools in which we acquire those spaces. Foundations Guiding Principles How does Kitchener achieve our vision for parks? Specific tools, including Council policy and amenity plans, will be developed as a result of Places & Spaces. The intent of this document is to provide the foundation for those tools in the form of recommendations. The following guiding principles will inform each recommendation and are critical in delivering this vision. The following are the guiding principles for Places & Spaces: Include everyone by providing spaces that are accessible for people of all ages, genders, religions, cultures, abilities, and incomes. Expand the parks system strategically with a focus on community level park services and existing gaps in that service level. Improve existing parks and the recreational components within them. Integrate environmental, ecological and climate change actions within park planning and improvements. Adapt park uses to suit current and future needs of established and growing communities. Connect all types of parks within the system through planning, physical, visual and environmental & ecological connections. Values The value of a park space can be relative to each individual experiencing the space, however it is clear that parks have long - been fundamental building blocks to communities, and often become the most identifiable feature of the City. Here's how parks contribute to the City: Wellbeing Parks are recreational, activity, and sporting hubs that are home to more than the vast majority of the City's sportsfields, sports courts, playgrounds, splashpads, skateparks, and pools. They promote physical activity and healthy living, and support a variety of active and passive outdoor uses that appeal to a wide range of individuals and groups. Parks are essential to the health and wellbeing of communities. By fostering outdoor activity, parks can contribute to the physical and psychological health of each community by simply providing the opportunity and means to access nature, passive & active exercise, exploration & play, social interactions and opportunities for respite. Access to park space and shade provided by mature tree canopy can also provide significant relief from sun exposure and heat as climate impacts continue to become more frequent and severe. They provide the means for accessible leisure facilities, both individual and organized, serving as the location for some of the Region's most important outdoor and indoor recreational opportunities. Social Wellness A Park space is often the focal point of a community, fostering community involvement, activity, safety, and awareness of its neighbourhood. They can deepen people's sense of belonging, and connect diverse neighbourhoods. They provide opportunity for social interactions, relationship building, and support community cohesion. They are canvases for placemaking opportunities like public art, gatherings, social clubs, festivals and events, and other cultural programming, often evoking a sense of personal responsibility from each community. From complex connections like community heritage and cultural history, to simpler ones like a favourite tree, playground, or field - each resident may have a personal connection or story with a park, and collectively those stories shape the importance of each space. Environment Parks and networks of park systems provide the vast majority of habitat for urban wildlife and vegetation. They allow for the conservation and protection of ecosystems and maintain biodiversity within a city's boundaries. This comes in the form of naturalized spaces within planned and maintained parks or dedicated parcels of land for the purpose of preserving wildlife habitat, corridors, and all natural system conservation. Parks are the green assets of the City, serving a valuable role to manage stormwater and are home to the majority of the City's large stature trees. They are then critical in the City's effort to adapt to climate changes like increasing rate of high intensity storm events, mitigating rising urban heat effects and extreme weather events. They also connect people and residents of the community to those natural systems, allowing demonstration and education of environmental systems and climate change protections in action. $ Foundations Page 24 8ffT7 Economy Parks most often provide passive economic benefits such as enhancements to residential property values and attractiveness for investments in business, industry and housing developments. They can provide large scale cost reductions in climate change impacts. They increase the City's resiliency to extreme weather events, reduce heat island effects of prolonged heat waves, and reduce stormwater filtration and collection infrastructure. Asa result, they defer or eliminate costs and overall public risks related to watershed erosion and flooding. More directly, parks can boost local tourism particularly through iconic landscapes, festivals, and entertainment or sporting events. The ripple effect of more people visiting the City can increase traffic to local stores, shops, accommodations, restaurants, transit, and so on. City of Kitchener Quality of Life A city's quality of life is shaped by its communities and the amenities that are offered. Communities that are livable, environmentally resilient, facilitate connection to nature and amenity -rich are where people want to live and work. Amenities by definition are the elements of a city or region that contribute to desirability of place. What a community offers, including its local cultural, historical, natural, and recreational amenities, improve the perceived quality of life that a city provides. Parks are one of those community amenities, and also contain, connect and enhance many more. The value parks provide further improves a community's quality of life while continuing to foster a sense of place. Global Direction United Nations Sustainable Development Goals In 2015 the United Nations adopted a 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). The plan is inclusive of 17 sustainable development goals and 169 targets. The goals and targets reflect a balance of the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. How do Kitchener's parks contribute to these goals? Here are the strongest links between Places & Spaces and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Clean Water and Sanitation Parks systems and amenities increasing water -use efficiency, and promote the participation of local communities in improving water management within parks. Affordable and Clean Energy CtEANENERGY Parks amenities and buildings focusing on three season design or elimination of natural gas to increase the U reliance and usage of renewable energy REDUCED� Reduced Inequalities UAIMES Empower and promote the social, economic and political C= inclusion of all irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status through parks design and consultation efforts Sustainable Cities and Communities ' Fostering adequate park space for established urban forest canopy, reducing the adverse environmental �• �: impact of cities with attention to air quality 10 Foundations Responsible Consumption & Production Employ use of sustainable and durable materials in park construction and maintenance Climate Action Continue to implement low -impact stormwater solutions in park settings to strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate -related hazards and natural disasters. Life on Land Contiue the practice of acquiring naturalized lands and environmental features for the purpose of protection and preservation of flora and fauna. Page 26 Sff'FY City of Kitchener Founaati"s 1 j 12 Foundations �� ',.• �('��� iter_ KITCN�EI Project Plan Schedule 2021 2022 2023 'v 3 Council Update O © O O V - Report & By -Law By -Law Required Engagement Target Public September 2022• Council2 Engagement Gathering Parks Topics Confirmation Initial surveys 7 topic groupings, variety of methods Results verified fA Report Places topic development, coordinated with grouped consultation efforts Council4 <9-¢ v, O Z 0 LL ¢ 9 ¢ v°'i O Z 0 1 :2 ¢ 9 ¢ v°'i O Z 0 14 Foundations Page 30 SMTP Schedule: Key Milestones 0 Introduction & Foundations June & August 2021 Staff will introduce the project, outline the need for the study and outline the methodology planned. Direction and commentary from Council will be sought to confirm the approach presented. External stakeholders will be notified of the project prior to the Council session, and consulted. Spaces Document & Park Dedication By -Law June 2022 Final documents to be provided and presented to Council, including Spaces, Park Dedication By -Law and engagement results. June 13th and June 20th 2022 are the targeted Committee and Council dates for presentation and approval of Spaces and draft Park Dedication By -Law. 0 Project Update December 2022 An update will be provided to Council following approval of the park dedication by-law and on-going development of Places, including draft documents to date, public consultation update and forecast completion prior to 2023. Places Documents Q4 2023 Targeted final approval from Council in quarter 4 of 2023. Final dates to be determined. City of Kitchener Foun'31 of 3F1� . ,'`� "" ,�...'�• t } +�`: � .,� �. �+� �4,� d _ ,a +� 114t I �' k 'nit a� t: �4 Y' , Ali 07 ',�,i i. ..•rz & >S i rtR, ¢ LI 9 r �, ..��� •' � �li y��.'��+ I{�� � i f #fit: �` �I_x. t� it _ e, ��-•i �� �I•, �. t�.» � ¢� �� 44 6k" Spaces: Framework Report Structure Spaces will explore the quantity of parks in Kitchener, and parks context within the City. It will detail Kitchener's current inventory, look at the definitions of park space, determine the amount and location of park space we need, and provide or update the tools in which we acquire those spaces. The structure of spaces will be a singular document following a logical sequence of the what, why and how of park properties and acquisitions. The categories below will form sections within the final document: • Defining Parks in Kitchener • Categorizing our Parks _ • Recognizing Alternatives • Measuring Park Provisions • Critical Needs and Park Gaps • Growth •ark Planning • How Parks are Planned and Acquired • Kitchener's Park Dedication By -Law • Establishing Park Provisions _ Addressing Critical Gaps • Leveraging Park Dedication • Additional Sources • Provincial Context Dedication By -Law Update Comparing Provisions • Revisions to the By -Law • Context within Development Charges City of Kitchener Spaces: Frar•Is3 of 17 Places: Framework F, P,i.. Places: Framework F, Report Structure Places will be presented in a series of policy statements exploring a wide range of themes in parks which are outlined below. The final collection of policies will evolve through the development and public consultation process. This is a working list and will continue to grow over time. A variety of engagement strategies will be used to inform these topics, including broad public engagement, specific stakeholder engagement, equity deserving community outreach, focus groups and phone surveys. Engagement methods will be utilized to best suit each topic. • Accessibility • Alternative Open Spaces • Design Philosophy • Education • Equity vs. Equality • Innovation • Pandemic Response • Safety • Habitat • Green Infrastructure & Sustainability • Trees • Turf & Maintenance • Art • Truth & Reconciliation • Equity vs. Equality • Placemaking & Community • Renewal & Replacement • Action Sports • Community Gardens • Dedications & Sponsorship • Petsin Parks • Play • Signage • Splashpads • Sportsfields & Courts • Trails & Access • Winter Use • Downtown Kitchener • Grand River • Legacy Parks City of Kitchener Places: FraTNMWt5 of 3119r J Y�7: �I-TFN � `�''� �'ti, ` }�','ib` � `; ,,, .,. � �4 � : _ • � � k �r a� is �aei4 1n �• f ,,� 5 ai ki ,74 t'@ � � �sSr ��> _ �"".� f �i��3 �r . � t'. � `•h F � � 3Y 'N ��"+i�f �k� ��� dR � ��.,aF �f ' y, $%`j� `yP (�t,��•Ye � � � t � 4 ^ � Aii4�pi1� � "fir `� «� �z `�„ ° i 7 � .. t � • P � �� � � .r .t �a� � 1t�*,��"� '.,+tai Rl�•,a cc� � r". * i � x � � � _, ��: � �-y' `•: � �:. i ke � �� ���i t. f� t.k F�l th !.� c �. 4 SPACES Places & Spaces - Parks Strategic Plan 1 KITcl-EN R Introduction Places & Spaces is the City of Kitchener's updated Parks Strategic Plan. Spaces is written to address quantity of parks in Kitchener, with its counterpart Places addressing quality of those parks. Table of Contents Executive Summary.......................................8 Consultation ................................................ 20 State of Kitchener Parks ............................. 28 What does quantity of parks mean for the City? To Park Planning .............................................. 44 answer that this document will build an understanding of parks from the ground up. It will look at existing Strategy........................................................ 54 inventory to establish what the City currently has, and critically how those parks have come to be. Park Dedication Update ............................. 72 Building on that foundation and using the tools available to us, we can establish where the gaps in Critical Needs Areas .................................... 92 parks provisions around the city are, and update the tools necessary to close those gaps with new park developments. Acknowledgments Places & Spaces will be a document focused on the park service provided to the Kitchener community. Our parks are integral to communities, providing spaces that people connect with the environment within, share space together, play and build connections. The City is in a unique position to be able to provide, care for, maintain and secure public access to parks and open spaces to all members of its' communities. The City of Kitchener recognizes these public spaces are planned and built on land that is the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee Peoples. Land ownership in Canada is one of great challenge and fraught with broken promises between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. We recognize our responsibility to serve as stewards for the land and honour the original caretakers who came before us. Our community is enriched by the enduring knowledge and deep rooted traditions of the diverse First Nations, Metis and Inuit in Kitchener today. The significance of this land to Indigenous communities will be respected and the vital role that parks and open spaces can play in Reconciliation is valued and will be reflected in Places and Spaces. In this document we do not address the ownership of these public spaces. The City holds these lands for, and on behalf of, the community that calls Kitchener home. We steward almost 2,000 hectares of land as part of a parks and open spaces system. As we develop this document we hope to better understand and address community needs and barriers to use these spaces, with a goal to ensure that all communities in Kitchener can feel welcome, safe and able to use our parks and open spaces. City of Kitchener Foreword Parks make livable cities, and we aspire to make Kitchener one of the most livable cities in Canada. Kitchener has an enviable amount of greenspace — almost 2000 ha of green and open space supports residents and communities that call Kitchener home. It's also an enviable network of space in which wildlife can call Kitchener home, supporting a rich mosaic of habitats supporting an even more varied diversity of life or biodiversity. Our local parks, the backbone of our park system, supporting community as community grows, changes and evolves, consists for almost 200 park spaces. Legacy parks such as Huron Natural Area, McLennan Park and Rockway Gardens support local use, but also attract visitors from across the Region and beyond; City parks, like Schlegel and Upper Canada attract sports teams from across Ontario, and through these and other events add to the vibrancy of the Region and economics of Kitchener. Kitchener is proud that so many amazing Spaces make up Kitchener's parks and open space system. Ensuring that this legacy of amazing space is continued for future generations is what we hope Spaces will help achieve. IV Introduction Welcome Spaces is the first part of Places and Spaces: A Parks and Open Space Strategy for Kitchener. This is an exciting and innovative strategy that will set the stage for future investments in Kitchener's parks and open spaces. These spaces are critical to a healthy community and City and through engagement, we have heard that; it is estimated that between 22 and 39 million visits are made to Kitchener's parks every year. Parks are essential to communities that call Kitchener home. As the City changes, as we look toward intensification, addressing climate change, and managing the impacts of growth, a clear strategic vision for how we shape the parks system in Kitchener is critical to ensure that we build a healthy City. Perhaps the most important part of this strategy is how the City is committed to ensuring equity in accessibility to parkland Space, and later, in Places, how the City will commit to building park spaces reflect community needs. Places & Spaces will lay out a vision for an equitable, diverse and connected park and open space system for the City. Glossary The following definitions are provided within the context of Park Planning: Park Land that is reserved or used for public recreation, leisure, environmental protection and _ ecological function Acquisition The process in which land is obtained by transferring from private to public ownership Amenities Desirable or useful features within a park setting, including but not limited to playgrounds, Park Dedication courts, structures, sports fields, etc. Application A form of municipal consent that is necessary for carrying out many types of land Planning Act development By -Law A rule or law established by a municipality to regulate itself within the allowance of a higher authority _ Cash -in -lieu A development process that substitutes dedication of physical land for park purposes with that lands monetary equivalent Community The smallest dissemination area within the city, often bound by physical barriers and referred to as Planning Community Development The process of growth or expansion. Within the parks context often the construction or re- construction of physical spaces. Maintained Representative of long term responsibility to keep within its intended state or purpose Neighbourhood A subset residential area within larger Planning Communities Park Dedication The requirement of all development to provide land for park or other recreational purposes Park Provision The supply of park space within the City, communicated as an average per person statistic Planning Act A provincial regulation that empowers municipalities to control development through Planning Policies and By -Laws Policy Guidelines under which critical decisions on development applications are made, supported _ by municipal by-laws Residential Unit A place of residence for one or more individuals, inclusive of a variety of built -forms School Grounds A property held, maintained and used for public educational purposes V11 Introduction Page 42 SPIT" City of Kitchener Intro uctior, e!I F, Mary, r. AMAM Ulm Executive Summary Introduction Parks and Open Spaces are more than important — they are essential part of building a community. These are the Spaces that are freely available for community to access; to play, gather, meet and connect in. Places & Spaces is Kitchener's strategic guideline for the provision and management of the park and open spaces system, an essential fabric of the City of Kitchener and the many communities that call Kitchener home. It is a strategy of three distinct, yet fundamentally linked parts. Part One: Foundations A short document, Foundations, lays out the vision and context for Places & Spaces and shares a project timeline. Part Two: Spaces Spaces is the first of two more substantive parts, sharing a historical and contemporary look at Parks and Open Spaces in Kitchener, providing a vision for the future of the system. Spaces focuses on the quantity of park space. Part Three: Places An ambitious series of guidelines that re -focus on what makes a park important — how people use these Spaces — and shares guidance on how great parks can be developed in Kitchener. Places focuses on the quality of park space. City of Kitchener Spaces: Planning Approach The approach to Spaces is to connect our expectations of park land with the tools that create them. We can set our park land targets within the plan, but if they are not grounded within sustainable and realistic methods, they will never be achievable. This approach starts at the beginning to re -assess the city's current park inventory and evaluate our current tools and practices of developing park spaces. Building on that foundation we can establish where gaps in our inventory exist and update the tools necessary to close those gaps. Current State of Parks Future Park Development Consultation More than 3,000 people have already had an opportunity to share feedback into Places & Spaces Around 1,700 residents, alongside multiple stakeholder groups from Neighbourhood Associations to developers, have shared feedback to inform Spaces. In person engagement has not been possible being limited by COVID restrictions. Digital information session, on-line surveys and virtual meetings have been held to gain as much insight into community needs as possible. In addition, statistically valid surveys to explore in greater depth what we have heard have been completed. Over the balance of 2022 we hope that many hundreds more will add their voices to shaping what Kitchener's parks and open spaces should look and feel like. City of Kitchener Existing Park Inventory Current Park Status The City is home to more than 1,700 hectares of park and open space. More than half of this are 'natural' areas — woodland and forests, creeks and wetlands that provide passive recreational opportunities such as walking and hiking, and home to countless types of wildlife. The balance, about 40%, makes up the Planned Park System and reflects what community may often associate with a City Park — more actively maintained and used spaces for things like sports, community gathering and festivals and facilitated play. Other Open Spaces Many other types of open space exist — urban plazas, hydro corridors and school yards all add and support outdoor recreation opportunities in each community. These Spaces are incredibly important to community and Spaces reflects on that. These spaces are often managed and owned by other organizations, and it is critical to understand their use is in addition to a publicly owned and operated parks system. MDevelopment Existing The Tools of IdentifyingInventory Creating Parks Park Needs Updated Park Categories Traditional park space intended for recreational amenity. Primary function of resource management, typically stormwater. Undeveloped land to preserve and protect natural features. 9 1 I r — — — — — — — —- I Local Parks , L — — — — — — — — � Neighbourhood and Community Parks form the Local Park group, intended to serve their local communities. 12 Exectuive Summary Page 48 SPIFFY Existing Park Inventory How Much Parkland is There? Kitchener has approximately 10 square meters of local parks per person that lives here. If ever resident in Kitchener visited their local park, each person would have an area about the size of the average bedroom to be in! Local parks are the backbone of the park system and provide the daily experience for walking the dog or passing through on your way to work or school. In total more than 200 park spaces can be found across the City, ranging from vast sites like Huron Natural Area to small neighbourhood parks like Hibner Green. All Parks Planned Parks Local Parks sq.m. per person 1■■■■ Iry �S�Z� ..• ' sq.m. per person ■■■n: sq.m. per person Updating Existing The Tools of Identifying Park Inventory Creating Parks Park Needs Development Tools Total Hectares of Parkland per Category City of Kitchener Exectuive St y}9 Of 13r Existing Park Inventory Where are Kitchener Parks? Kitchener's parks are not evenly spread throughout the city. In the early days of city growth and change, local parks were not considered as the City initially grew. Through the 1960s to today, parks were recognized as critical to city building, becoming more integral to the heart community planning. This has lead to some areas being relatively well served by local parks, while other areas are less well served. Many of the areas with lowest levels of parks are also areas where high levels of growth are projected as the City changes. Variation in park provision also mirrors socioeconomic demographics; many areas underrepresented for parks overlap with equity deserving communities, lower income and higher levels of rental and apartment style living. U Existing The Tools of Identifyiko" rk �:ntory Creating Parks Park NeDevelop s ent 14 Exectuive Summary Partial City Map illustrating Local Park Provisions in each Planning Community 010+ 08-10 0 5-8 - 2-5 - <2 * No Parks Existing Park Inventory How does Kitchener Compare? Kitchener is in the top end of total park and open space in comparison to similar municipalities in the province. Looking specifically at the Planned Park spaces (the traditional, active park spaces) Kitchener fairs less well. Larger urban municipalities like Hamilton, Toronto and Mississauga have a lower provision of planned park space, while Cities like Brampton Ottawa and Guelph have more. Kingston Guelph Waterloo Brampton Ottawa Thunder Bay Kitchener Hamilton Mississauga Richmond Hill Toronto Park Provision (sq.m. per person) Source: Canadian City Parks Report 2021 •'estimated from 202aParks Report data ITarget Provision (where one exists) City of Kitchener Exectuive S T)1 Of Asr Tools of Creating Parks How does the City Create Parks? While a few parks have come to the City from donations or purchases, the vast majority of parks have been developed as part of the residential development of the City. Parks are designed and built in these areas as development occurs. The most important method of securing park land is through Parkland Dedication, a process which is directed under Provincial policy and enacted through the city's local by-law. The bylaw lays out how much land the City may seek through development, and how much cash in lieu of park land can be collected (referred to as "cash-indieu") Dedication Limitations The City can currently achieve between 8.5 and 13.3 square meters per person of parks using the existing bylaw and legislated tools. With few exceptions these parks are intended as Local Parks. The City has a current average provision of 10.1 square meters per person. In order to maintain and grow a complete park and open space system for future generations, the City must continue to work with developers to secure the maximum amount of parkland under these legislated tools, to meet current and future community needs. The Tools of Creating Parks Development Incentives The City has provided an incentive to develop downtown for many years. Downtown development has been exempt from contributing parkland dedication, either in land or cash in lieu of land, under this exemption. Staff are recommending that this incentive no longer be applied to the downtown. Spaces makes a recommendation around capping parkland fees to ensure that a balanced community can be developed. Spaces also considers if other discounts might be valuable, such as to aid affordable housing development. Any discount to park land dedication will reduce the amount of parkland available to communities in Kitchener. 16 Exectuive Summary Page 52 SPIFFY Tools of Creating Parks - = Addressing Growth Kitchener is growing – it's one of the fastest growing cities in Canada. As the City grows, so too does its park network. In 2022 more than a dozen newJ-j iii parks and open spaces are being planned in the city's new communities. •1 f ■ ° ° ■ it — 1-T I i■s However, growth in the City is changing. As the City stops growing_r. aT ■° °■i ■ ■ ■ outward and starts growing upward, the availability of land for new arks is 9 g p Y p Y �'T ■1 "� pIT.°°■ decreasing, and reliance on cash in lieu increases. li—■ ■ eilp r.ril How the City invests this funding is becoming ever more critical to ensure 'ii rtic� that new parks are considered for the city's established and future residents. liltd NEIN Cllr n rrli� rri� - rrie rri� rril lilrM Cii1C City of Kitchener - _ i+i,:. Identifying Park Needs Critical Needs Areas As part of the commitment to addressing Equity in park and open space access, Spaces establishes and identifies Critical Needs Areas at a Planning Community level. These areas are based on sociodemographic information, existing parkland provision and growth forecasts of each community. The end result is a priority - based investment plan to create parks and open spaces in the highest needs areas. Setting a Target for Parkland Park land targets are useful to benchmark how we are doing in terms of meeting community needs. It also adds value in understanding what aspirations we have as a City. A target falls short to reflect or measure all parks and open spaces. It does not determine what is 'enough' park space. Spaces considers establishing a target of 10 scl m per person, and specific community objective provisions to achieve within a 20 year window of growth projections. It is the goal of Spaces to connect the overall target to achievable limits within Provincial policy, and to use the targets to direct community level actions to address equity in parkland supply. Identifying Park Needs 18 Exectuive Summary Updating Development Tools What will be changing? Spaces makes a number of recommendations to maintain and grow a park and open space system that addresses current pressures and responds to future growth. Many of these changes are within an updated Parkland Dedication Bylaw and Council Policy and include: • Removing the downtown exemption • Approving a revised target(s) for parkland provision • Utilizing target provisions as new development review standards • Updating the way in which Cash in Lieu is valued and collected • Ensuring that collected Cash in Lieu is directed toward purchasing parkland • Working with school boards and others in how'other' open space can help support community access to parks and open spaces • Developing an approach to actively looking at where new parks should be and how to get them • Looking at incentives that may or may not be applied that would reduce dedication to support other programs, like affordable housing • Establishing Critical Needs Areas and directing park and open space investments into addressing community-based needs. Updating Park Development Tool City of Kitchener Exectuive S49JWTi5 Of Agr r . 1 +'.- _ W'c ,.�,. r'� �(P� hr a F�4 � f�j.- � A ���� � ! e, t.,"x, d/16�d, �v. •ij� ; �* , 9 Consultation .;,,�. Huro :;N_ . .,(2' f - - Summary Consultation is a process where by we want to reconfirm what we have learnt through engagement and share how we have interpreted and reflected this is a final plan. Places & Spaces has taken a phased approach to its consultation process: July 2021 to February 2022 An initial engagement plan focused on the quantity of park land in Kitchener - how much park land the City has and where it is distributed. Timelines and stakeholders targeted ensure completion and compliance under the Provincially established requirements for a Parks Plan and Parkland Dedication By-law. January 2022 to April 2023 A robust, outcome -driven engagement plan focused on the quality of parks in Kitchener. Engagement will cover 30+ parks -related topics over 15 months, providing in-depth opportunities for public, community and equity -deserving group input. May 2023 to July 2023 Final confirmation of Places input and critical directions. City of Kitchener Consultation Background Places & Spaces is intended to be outcome -driven and lead by community input and conversation. Regardless of race, religion, sexuality, gender, age, ability or income, everyone has a right to access park space. The goal is to improve park experiences for all. Phase 1 of engagement focuses on the quantity of park space in Kitchener. It is geared to inform the park dedication by -Law, which is provincially required to be updated by September 18, 2022. Both the technical nature of Spaces and timelines associated with the mandatory review periods are reflected in the methods of engagement. Phase 2 of engagement will reflect efforts to connect directly to communities, neighbourhoods, equity -deserving groups and park users. Phase 1 coincides with COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, limiting in-person conversation and gathering planning with constant changes in public health recommendations. Phase 1 required a significant reliance on online presence, distanced conversations and passive promotion and advertisements. It is also understood that parks are rooted in a history of exclusion and segregation, some still bearing the name of their colonial origins. Those communities of the highest need may rightfully not wish to participate. This is will be a significant barrier to truly improving park spaces for everyone, and one that is not solved through surveys and public information centres. Huron Natural Area (2021) Consultation Phase 1: Methods Council & Stakeholder Consultation Engagel(itchener Platform Statistically Valid Survey Volunteer Base - Building Parks Together Public Information Centres Direct feedback from City Councilors, the Development community and community stakeholders The primary online location of all project information - surveys, polls, discussions, Q&A's and presentations A phone survey conducted by a third party research team. Volunteer base of 100+ representing Online presentations and Q&A open to the public In -Person Park Presence (if available) Due to increasing pandemic restrictions during Phase 1, park presence was limited to posted signs at 20+ high Event Pop -ups (if available) use outdoor locations V s Posters and information was available at all community a Community Centres & Facilities centres, arenas and indoor pools prior to facility restrictions in December 2021 R a Advertisements A combination of promotion through City of Kitchener social media platforms, media releases and paid Social Media Promotion advertisements on mobile apps City of Kitchener Enga,rg of 213r Consultation Phase 1 A: What We Heard Engage Kitchener: This online survey ran for three (3) months from October 2021 to January 2022. A general introduction to the project, purpose, and goal was outlined on the City's online survey platform and was supplemented with a video welcome message from the Director of Parks & Cemeteries. Multiple tools were used to engage the public from a survey, polls, idea boards, and ability to post questions in addition to the ability to ask questions directly to the project team. Statistically Valid Survey: Total Respondents: n = Selle 502 1176 Statistically Valid Survey Engage Kitchener What We Heard: (SVS, Phone) (Online) Environics Research was retained to conduct a statistically valid survey (SVS) on the City's behalf. The goal of the SVS was to ensure a representative sample of Kitchener residents (including those who do not have landlines in their household), both landline (n321) and cellphone (n181) sample was included. Data was collected from October 27 2021 to November 7, 2021. The survey was conducted via telephone and was approximately 11 minutes in length. Regions included Northeast, Northwest, and South Kitchener filtered using postal codes. The key highlights and findings from the two surveys have been compared graphically. 24 Engagement Page 60 SPIFFY Parks, trails and open spaces use: • 36% every day, • 42% a few times a week, • 17% a couple of times a month of online respondents irregular users of part trails & outdoor spac@ • promoted year round use with maintenance during all seasons, • invested in keeping existing spaces up to date, and • invested in new spaces to improve access for all. of online respondents prefer other activities and 0% have no interest in using parks more. A Parks, trails and open spaces use: X70°�° 15% every day, of to 33% a few times a week, espondents a 22% a couple of times a reaular useo month parks, trails & out spaces �i of telephone 30% , respondents are irregular users of parks, trails & AWL outdoor spaces of online respondents are regular users of parks, trails & outdoor spaces 25% -' of telephone respondents say they would use parks more if th- City: 1� LO O V • of online spondents say they would use parks more if the City: • increased the number of tables, benches and waste receptacles in parks, • invested in trails to bring them up to date and • invest in parks to make them more accessible. of telephone respondents 8% prefer other activities and have no interest in using parks more. Consultation Use parks to engage in physical 77%activity like biking, walking, running, hiking or swimming. Use parks to spend time with their family or kids, their dogs, 25% and enjoying the available nature, gardens and wildlife found in parks and outdoor spaces. Preferred Location: Preference for the location of new parks among online survey respondents is consistent with results from the telephone sample. Specifically, a plurality of interest is expressed for the central region of the City, while the balance is relatively evenly distributed, with the smallest interest to the North. 28% 15°'° 14'° 10%9% 39% Use parks for physical activities moll 80%such as biking, walking, running, hiking, or swimming. Use parks to enjoy nature, gardens 27% 17'° 19'° 12''°11°'° 48°'° 70% and wildlife. ■ Central West North South East did not answer -Not enough parks, trails, Right amount of parks, and open space. M trails, and open space. 26 Engagement Page 62 SPIFFY Consultation Phase 1: Summary The following are the key summary highlights for both engagements: 1. It was found that over 90% of residents use local parks, trails, and outdoor spaces. Demographics including age, family stage and income play a factor in park usage, as does the length of residence in the City. Residents under 55 with children at home, with higher levels of income tend to be frequent park users. 2. It was found that residents tend to use parks and outdoor spaces primarily for pursuing physical activity, getting out with kids, walking dogs, and enjoying nature. Additional activities and amenities sought by residents directly relate to these traditional park uses. 3. Findings relating to barriers to park usage include health and safety and the proximity to nearest local park, causing those residents to be irregular users. Infrequent users experience walks greater than 10 minutes to get to their local park, a distance which exceeds that of more regular users, who believe on average that parks should be within a 3-6 minute walk of a residence. 4. Kitchener residents support improvement to parks and outdoor spaces. Telephone respondents prefer to see investment go into making parks and open spaces more accessible, more welcoming to the city's diverse population, and to consider climate change mitigations to protect the physical environment. Online respondents prefer to see investment in upkeep and keeping parks open through all four seasons. Closer car parking and more public art are the lowest priorities for both groups and that these activities do not currently draw them to Kitchener parks and trails. 5. There appears to be support for increasing City taxes in the interest of expanding the City's park network and amenities. Irregular and non-users are less keen about this, unless the investment means more parks will be created (presumably to bring them into closer proximity to these residents and shorten their walk). • Respondents prefer to see the potential tax increase go into a fund that is used specifically for park improvements in Kitchener. • A majority of Kitchener residents would like to see City investments go to both creating new parks and enhancing existing parks, although the ultimate preference is informed by park usage and proximity City of Kitchener EngaPDAW63 of 217 Consultation Phase 1 B: Confirmation The City re-engaged the public to confirm our direction of Spaces and its key directions, including: Total Respondents: • Park Classifications - are these the right categories for Kitchener? • Priority Areas & Critical Needs Analysis - do you agree with this approach? n= • Use of Park Dedication Funding in the Priority Areas - do you agree with this approach? 4 Engage Kitchener: A S 0 An on-line survey ran for six (6) weeks from April to May 2022. The draft Spaces document, and �� a highly summarized version, were posted along side the survey in addition to the on-going feedback opportunities within the EngageKitchener platform including ideas boards and live questions and answers to the project team. Consultation Phase 1 B: Confirmation Park Classifications Q: Are these classifications the right ones for Kitchener? 90% of respondents found the classifications right for Kitchener Most respondents support the proposed classifications as they are straightforward, well defined and align with the needs of the growing region. Some participants are indifferent to the classification system so long as their parkland needs are met. Use of Park Dedication Funding in Priority Areas Q: Do you agree with this approach in Spaces? Priority Areas & Critical Needs Analysis Q: Do you agree with this approach in Spaces? 68% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed in the prioritized approach in ® Spaces. ® ® e Most respondents believe that high priority areas should be considered first but should not have to wait many years to be served. Concerns are also centered around the rapid growth of the residential development while greenspace development is severely lacking and dis-proportionally allocated. Other Comments: Did We Miss Anything? 53% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed in the use of park dedication funding in prioritized areas. u ZA-0) Respondents are split. Some participants would like to see developers create parkland while others do not trust developers to create adequate parkland that meet their needs. With those supporting Cash in Lieu, they agree that high priority areas should be served first. Others believe that if Cash in Lieu is accepted, the funds should go directly into the community they were generated from. Generally participants provided comments to include more green space/naturalized areas in parks, addressing the severe lack of parkland and creating safe parks that are accessible to the community. City of Kitchener EngaPEAnlfi5 of 2I9r State of Kitchener Parks �000 Introduction 4 fir. w Quantity of Parks Creating Parks Updating Tools Parks and Open Spaces are areas of land that are held and managed p p g >� for public space by the City of Kitchener. These spaces are freelycag<'9' \` available for recreation, leisure and enjoyment. They are critical components to the quality of life of residents, visitors anda� communities in Kitchener. They also include a wide variety of types of land. Parks and open spaces will be separated into three categories: Resource, Natural, and Planned. Natural lands make up 52% of the City's parks and open space inventory, i.e. greenways, natural areas, and general open space. These are large swaths of land dedicated to the preservation and conservation of habitat or other natural features such as creeks, wetlands, floodplains and forests. j9 A %dole Planned spaces, which are more traditional park spaces, make up about 40% of the overall park inventory. They are defined by their active characteristics like mowed turf, playgrounds, sportsfields, and other types of recreational infrastructure. These are planned and maintained spaces that are likely most commonly thought of when referring to public parks. They can range from iconic city landscapes, to local neighbourhood parks, and small urban parkettes. Planned Parks are the focus of Spaces, particularly the provision of park space for the City's residents. .„ v -,-v 41" City of Kitchener Page 67 of 317 Classifying Parks Categorizing park spaces within any city is a common tool for taking stock of the City's current inventory of land, and aiding in managing the vast amount of park space the City is responsible for. More importantly for Spaces, it is critical in answering the question "how much park space do we need?" The Parks Strategic Plan (2010) provided a framework using Natural Areas, City Parks, District Parks, Neighbourhood Parks, Urban Greens and Greenways as the foundation of classification. Each category represents a combination of park type, size and function. Updating these categories will provide a simpler framework, better suited for assessing Planned parks needs: Traditional park space created, constructed and managed with intent to serve as a recreational amenity. Land with a primary function of resource management, typically stormwater ponds and engineered creek channels. No active programming present or possible. Typically trail corridors or greenways. Various outdoor active uses with direct connection to immediate neighbourhood. i Enhanced outdoor features, community gathering facilities and amenities. High intensity programming for City and Region wide activities (e.g. pools, arenas, stadiums) Undeveloped land for the purpose of preserving and Unique landscapes with significant protecting natural features and ecological habitats. 4 natural, cultural, or heritage value. Micro Parkette Small Medium Large Vast <0.1 ha 0.1 -0.5ha 0.5-1.5ha 1.5-3.0ha 3.0-10.0 ha > 10.0 ha 32 State of Parks Page 68 SPIFFY Classifying Parks 40kd1b 140koNb Trails & Greenways SON (�) A%. k -A �d*�o�OMD GNP la` 04400 004400 (�) %" R (�) %,., A (�) %", R (�) %", R Active Uses -Siff'o Community Facilities • . Neighbourhood and I � �• I � e Community Parks form the High Intensity Use Local Park group, intended to serve their local communities. ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ili * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�� Many Kitchener parks, regardless of classification, can be seen as unique or significant, or simply don't fit neatly into each category. These categories should be thought of as an improved way to measure the City's park inventory and Unique & Significant provision levels rather than a rigid organization. City of Kitchener State Vage'69 of 317 �a' Neighbourhood mmunity Example: Example: Woodside Park Viiria Park T T T •C f. I •-r � Da fs <�P+f Alternative Open Space Within this document Parks are introduced as lands that are held and managed for public use by the City of Kitchener, available for recreation, leisure and enjoyment. There are other open spaces within the City that also contribute to the outdoor recreation and leisure activities, such as: Golf Courses Kitchener holds and operates two golf courses: Rockway and Doon Valley Golf clubs. Combined they are approximately 102 hectares of publicly accessible open space outside of fee -associated sport use. Doon Valley is a critical link between Kitchener and Cambridge on the Walter Bean Grand River & Trans -Canada Trail network, with trail users and golf patrons sharing a portion of the paved pathway. Golf courses can be an attractive open space feature for communities, however due to their programming needs and dawn -to -dusk usage, they are not classified as park properties. The City will continue to pursue passive recreational interests within these open spaces. Cemeteries Kitchener holds and operates six cemeteries: Williamsburg, Woodland, Mount Hope, St. Peters Lutheran, Bridgeport and Strasburg Pioneer Cemeteries. All locations are accessible to the public during daylight hours. Similar to golf courses, cemeteries do provide passive recreational opportunities that are secondary to their primary use. The City will continue to pursue passive recreational interests within these open spaces, and will be exploring these uses further in Places within its own topic. City of Kitchener Doon Valley Golf Williamsburg Cemetery Page 71 of 317 Alternative Open Space Conservation Lands Similar to natural areas that provide passive recreational space through trail access, conservation lands are held and operated by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) with occasional use by the City as a public trail route (e.g. Walter Bean Grand River Trail). Public use is often limited as these lands are primarily for conservation purposes, such as protecting environmentally sensitive flora or fauna or preserving areas as creek and river floodplains Conservation lands are not included in the overall park analysis. Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) Privately owned public spaces are privately held and maintained spaces, typically parkette or micro sized, that have entered into a long-term agreement with the City to allow public use. These spaces are typically associated with large scale, high density residential development that cannot provide a publicly held park but still require recreational amenities. The City does not have a formal POPS program. There is one property under such an agreement, located within 460 Belmont (The Trio on Belmont), and therefore does not contribute in a significant way to the park provision. The idea of privately owned public space will be addressed in the Park Dedication By -Law Update section as it is primarily a Planning and Development tool. 36 State of Parks Walter Bean Grand River Trail (2021) Privately Owned Public Space (POPS) within 460 Belmont (2021) Alternative Open Space Hydro Corridors The City is bisected by utility service transmission corridors. Commonly these are for buried services such as gas pipelines and for over head services, such as electricity transmission. These utility corridors often have safety zones that restrict development, leaving them as open space. These corridors serve a primary role of distributing or carrying goods or providing services to residents. However, they can have limited recreational functions such as supporting trails and adding to biodiversity. These open space corridors are considered Passive Park space if that function can be achieved (e.g. an established public trail). Those that cannot support an active use and are highly constrained by their primary use cannot be considered as park land. Chicopee Ski & Summer Resort Located in the south east of Kitchener, Chicopee is more than 16S acres of land held by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and operated for almost 100 years privately as a winter and summer activity destination. Chicopee is a private enterprise and is not generally publicly accessible without a ticket. The City operates trails that cross parts of the property on both the east and west side. Residents have participated in skiing, snowboarding and a wide range of summer activities including disc golf, tennis, volleyball, mountain bike riding and summer camps. In many ways Chicopee appears as Kitchener's sixth Legacy Park, however it remains under private management requiring paid entry. The property will continue to be an important outdoor destination for residents and communities. As Chicopee is not a city managed operation, requiring ticketed access for use, it is not considered in any park and open space provision. However, there are opportunities to explorejoint partnerships with Chicopee. Further recommendations and public input will be addressed through a dedicated topic within Places. City of Kitchener Filsinger Green Hydro Corridor (2021) Chicopee Ski Hill Alternative Open Space School Grounds School properties are publicly accessible open spaces that share many of the same features of Neighbourhood and Community Parks. Schools provide their own playgrounds and sportsfields to support their curriculum, with some exceptions that do share use of typical park amenities. There are many advantages to pairing school board properties with park systems, It can maximize the coverage of recreational amenities avoiding redundant infrastructure. There are also many challenges. During regular school hours and within school semesters, the amenities on school grounds are intended and often restricted to use by school children only. Outside of school hours and the school semesters the grounds are dormant and available for community use. City -School Board partnerships can be an effective means to ensuring these amenities are available to the community. School grounds are not considered park space. However, in established, park land deficient communities, formal recognition and partnership with specific schools may be a preferred alternative to limited acquisition opportunities. This topic will be further explored in Places. Other Public Spaces Many other types of public space can provide recreational opportunities that mirror those in parks. Urban Plaza's such as Carl Zehr and Market squares and closed streets such as Gaukel Street can provide space for various outdoor recreational uses. There are many spaces that add immense value and provide 'park -like' experiences. Investing in these spaces is critical and the function of these Spaces will be further considered in Places. These spaces are considered "in -addition to" a base level parkland system and do not replace the need for more traditional, green local park spaces. 38 State of Parks ,r .., . Carl Zehr Square (2019) Measuring Park Provisions Establishing park provision levels throughout the City will be done using the following principles: 1. Use a familiar and universal unit of measurement. Past master plans used hectares per 1,000 residents, while the Planning Act (refer to the Park Planning section) uses residential units per hectare. From this point on all evaluation will be completed using square meters per person; 2. Focus on the provision of Local Parks. Total area of local parks reflects the service level for each community and is the strongest link between park service level and acquisition methods for park land. Total area of local parks is the strongest indicator of each community's access to public parks. 3. Exclude City or Legacy parks, such as Victoria or McLennan Park. The local use of these parks are important but do compete with City and Region wide demand. They are also typically large areas of park space that are unachievable under modern costs of land and legislation limits. Specific community analysis will consider these locations to determine appropriate policy measures. 4. Use Planning Communities as boundaries to determine provision of parks. A city wide park provision will be critical for policy planning, but does not accurately reflect local park availability; 5. Exclude non-residential communities from the evaluation. These communities, such as Trillium Industrial Park and Huron Park, have near zero residential population and no local parks to evaluate. Park Inventory The City of Kitchener holds and maintains 506 parcels of land classified as parks at a total of 1,722 hectares, with 40% falling into the Planned classification. Charts below illustrate the total land area within the Planned Park classification and their distribution by size. The most common type of planned park space in Kitchener is a small neighbourhood park, between 0.5 and 1.5 hectares in size. Quantity and Total Area of Planned Parks 40 State of Parks 218 175 Total Hectares of Parkland per Category 215 1,151 90 40 11 10 5 418 149 191 2 31 Park size Micro Parkette Small Medium Large Vast 34 48 106 157 91 80 Quantity and Total Area of Size Categories - All Park Space Page 76 gff'F7 122 Passive 74 40 State of Parks 218 175 Total Hectares of Parkland per Category 215 1,151 90 40 11 10 5 418 149 191 2 31 Park size Micro Parkette Small Medium Large Vast 34 48 106 157 91 80 Quantity and Total Area of Size Categories - All Park Space Page 76 gff'F7 Park Inventory Key Results All Parks sq.m. per person Local Park Provision Planned Parks Local Parks What does 10 square meters look like? ■■■■■ 111Et About the size of a small bedroom: `o7gC7 ■JLOLA ����r■....•.'.. ,• tq.m. per person 1 ® 1 ■■■■■: ■■■■... ' 3.2m [10'1 .. sq.m. per person 3.2m [10] Community Analysis: 0 = 1 Planning Community Identifying the local park provision in terms of square meters per person allows the City to easily identify . . . . . . . . . . communities that are above or below this average rate. The above graphic illustrates the break out of Local Parks from all Planned Parks and the entire parks portfolio. Community Analysis Using the local park provision of 10.1 sq.m. per person, more than half of the residential communities are above or approximately at the city-wide average. The remaining communities are below the average to varying degrees. 20 Above city wide average 5 Approximately average 10 Below average 7 Well below average Critically below average Non-residential communities City of Kitchener State 96SO&F7 of :4V Park Provisions Parks, All� a. T .. City Average: 67.0 sq.m. per person ` �pro0.. 80+ PoR .o.E�w. -140-80 s„ 20 40o.ax� woRo. 0 10-20 m;,.,. - � It 5-10 �, j�" 10OD �o� IO— m ,,,gym 0 * No Parks o. xE Fes, IL � 1 3R=� � F 6 ♦ o, a.� R w a fo% rte. l IIR 10-R ♦' on 42 State of Parks r Page 78 of 317 �I � Park Provisions City est Legacy Parks ro...m Legacy Parks (5): Huron Natural Area Kiwanis Park McLennan Park ©► „ °m ;, .E.R� Rockway Gardens'kv Victoria Park L� . r "� "�1� '" 10- F,sRIA.,, l;o City Parks (10): 10-THE O Breithaupt Park � K �- ~ � "�' - l-ate �r'ro.,.m ,.°m,.,m+► / © Bridgeport Sportsfields r e. 0R os.- © , Budd Park , s.am� . m. O Joe Thompson Park © KMAC Auditorium Complex R. OLions Park .. .. E^ OPeter Hallman Ballyard , .� �►�+ ♦Po�Ea� RBJ Schlegel Park Q 1. ORosenberg Park "Iy" i Woodside Park d City of Kitchener NOPa,k. � �t �� � � � Page 79 of 317 Park Provisions City Average: �Po 10.1 sq.m. per person 1 10+ mms amro.,.m a , 0 8 - 1067 a3;nc 0 5 -8 �,. 5 �� ,"° IJ. 2 u 6 roo m s C�° a * No Parks 'Ilia Poa 99 Community Parks (11): wm,:o� °m.ro;° Chandler Park Cherry Park © Fischer Park Forest Heights CC Park �`��',Ao— © Growski Park Idlewood Park a�mro m �w. OTyson Park ��,P,,.. o Q Knollwood Park °ppm �, " " o O60 Upper Canada Park ° (i Wilson Park Weber Park 44 State of Parks �,a,P,,.. L f Page 80 of 317 City of Kitchener Vogelsang Green (2021) 'T~ + 3 M 49 r t ark Planning • •,! ,�C{ _ e. 1, .. ' � r� �,. 7 1 .p J �Yw• yJ�wG'•1�� Introduction Quantity of Parks > Creating Parks > Gaps in Parks Updating Tools Measuring the City's current state of parks is the first step to identifying how many parks the City needs. The Park Planning section will provide background and context into how parks are created. The background will start at the beginning - from the first park created in the Town of Berlin, now the City of Kitchener, to the current policies in place that guide the process of creating and providing park space. Understanding how parks come to be, and equally as important, how existing parks came to be, is critical in guiding their future. It is within these park planning policies established by the Province of Ontario's legislation that ultimately determine the park provision for the City's immediate and long term future. City of Kitchener No WINTER MAINTENANCE r The Cmof Kitchener As — N ` Resibibty For An lnuw PO- nsE,11 That Occ In Thi Area 7 • f- __.qf 317 A Brief History of Public Parks In 1894, The Town of Berlin Council voted eight to six in favour of a new by-law adopting the Public Parks Act and approving the acquisition of 28 acres (11 hectares) of land for a city central park. The land was purchased and developed for a cost of $18,000 (approximately $500,000 today), and despite many challenges and much opposition, Victoria Park was opened two years later profoundly impacting the City's landscape and its residents for future generations. Since Victoria Park was established the City has developed and supported the creation of 429 hectares of active park space, 126 hectares of greenways and preservation of 1,082 hectares of natural open space. Victoria Park is one of the City's five legacy parks, and along with the majority of its city facilities, represents a class of park space that is largely unachievable in modern times. The two modern examples of large scale park developments - McLennan Park (2010) and RBJ Schlegel Park (2020) were acquired or developed under unique circumstances. McLennan is famously a capped landfill, and RBJ Schlegel Park falls outside of the development limit of the City (the Countryside Line). Both properties have limited development potential due to physical or property zoning restrictions, one of the few remaining uses of both being public park. The processes and tools the City has to secure land for public park purposes will be explored in this section. Roos Island Bridge, Victoria Park (1896) Pa,ge 84 ot17`'~" $ +.c.... Acquiring Parkland The City of Kitchener can acquire parkland in one of, or a combination of, four different ways: conveyance or donation, direct purchase, expropriation and/or park dedication. Conveyance or Donation The City becomes the benefactor of land through estate donations, conveyances of non -developable land, or by other means that are of no cost to the City. Conveyances are a long established, though now uncommon, way of acquiring planned park properties. Conveyances remain the primary means of retaining vast areas of natural/open space that is otherwise unable to be developed. Portions of older parks have come through conveyance methods, such as 20 acres of Breithaupt Park from the Louis Breithaupt Estate in 1912. Direct Purchase A city is like any other individual or organization and can purchase land for public use at fair market value. The City is also within the first -right -of -refusal hierarchy for other publicly funded lands when they are disposed of or declared surplus, such as former School Board lands, Region of Waterloo or Grand River Conservation retained properties. The City relies on funding generated by cash -in -lieu of parkland dedications secured through development applications to pursue these purchases. RBJ Schlegel Park, beginning its phased development in 2017, was originally purchased by the City in 1983 directly from Rockway Holdings. City of Kitchener Breithaupt Park (2021) RBJ Schlegel Park (2021) Acquiring Parkland Expropriation Public bodies have the power to acquire privately owned land without the consent of the owner for public use under the Expropriations Act. Expropriations are most often used in infrastructure projects such as highways, roadways, or other infrastructure improvements, with private owners being compensated under fair market value. Expropriations are uncommon for park land acquisition. Park Dedication Park dedication and acquisition through development is regulated in the Planning Act, a provincial legislative document that is the most common modern tool for acquiring public parkland. The Planning Act permits municipalities to require developers to either dedicate land for use as a public park or other recreational space, or pay cash -in -lieu of land. Cash -in -lieu is held by the municipality in a Park Trust Fund as a reserve to purchase lands for the sole purpose of park use. There are no restrictions on where within the City the cash -in -lieu can be used. Land or cash -in -lieu of land dedications applies to all of: • Development or redevelopment (Section 42 of the Planning Act); • Subdivision of land (Section 51.1 of the Planning Act); and • Consents (i.e. Committee of Adjustment, Section 53 of the Planning Act). Dedication is required of the developer not exceeding 2% for commercial and industrial purposes; and 5% in all other cases. The Planning Act provides an alternative rate that requires the developer to convey additional land for residential developments. The alternative rate has two upper limits: • 1 hectare per 300 units if dedication is taken as land (42-3); and • 1 hectare per 500 units if dedication is taken as cash -in -lieu (42-6.0.1). 5o Park Planning Park Dedication By-law & Policy The Planning Act permits municipalities to require park dedication. It is the choice of each municipality to apply those policies as they deem necessary. There is a wide variety of methods of applying park dedication requirements across the province as each municipality develops their own priorities and targets. The City currently uses two documents to enact and guide park dedication within the City respectively: 1. Park Dedication By -Law, Chapter 273 — Enacts the Provincial Policy. 2. Parkland Dedication Policy (2012) — Guides the application of park dedication. Both documents combine to outline the principles of park acquisition and are representative of the City's priorities of park service levels for its residents. Both will be revised as part of this document, and remain subject to further changes by Provincial legislation. The following is a summarized list of those key principles in place at the time of writing this document: • The maximum allowable dedication is applied across the City under the Planning Act; • Downtown (City Commercial Core) is exempt from all park dedication requirements; • Development that has at any time paid or conveyed the maximum amount of park dedication, is exempt from all future dedication requirements; • There are no reductions, caps, or density incentives within Kitchener's policies (more on these tools in Section 4); and • Cash -in -lieu contributions are calculated against a static book value within the Dedication Policy, organized by generic land use classifications (e.g. Residential Apartment, Townhouse, Commercial, Industrial, etc.). City of Kitchener Park PlaggiFU Of TAT Acquisitions in Practice So how does the City actually get land for park use? In short — the most reliable way of acquiring land is through greenfield subdivision development at a 5% land rate. With some exception, 100% of subdivision applications will yield planned park property or properties equivalent to 5% of the total development area. The City applies park dedication to severance and site plan applications as well which yield 100% and 99% cash -in -lieu of land contributions respectively. Of all the development applications through these processes since 2016 (approximately 268 reviewed by Parks staff), only 4 required a land dedication, resulting in 2 tangible park developments (Fergus Green and Rose Park). The remaining developments have totaled around $15,700,000 in cash -in -lieu requirements* Acquiring parkland through site plan development has, and will continue to be, a challenge for the City and development community. Developments are often large scale, high density proposals in which parkland is critical, however the sites themselves are not adequate for conveying land for park purposes. Location, orientation, elevation, connectivity, and visibility among other criteria that often cannot be met. Taking of land may also be detrimental to the development itself limiting parking, street frontage or simply the area necessary to construct a functioning residential site. The result is the City's taking of land in less than 1% of the development applications. *Note these figures are based on application evaluations only. This does not reflect actual dollars collected, understanding not all developments reviewed proceed through completion. Site Plan Development 266 Developments requiring cash -in -lieu of parkland from 2016 to 2021 2 park developments Fergus Green in development (image taken November 2020) Growth Spaces is a plan based on current population and park inventory information. As of 2020 the Region of Waterloo is the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country at 2.8% annual growth, according to StatsCan data. With rapid growth comes the demand for equal growth in all public services, including public parks. Municipalities are charged with ensuring they direct proper and orderly development within their boundaries. Kitchener achieves this through various planning tools such as the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, Kitchener Official Plan, and Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS), a bi-annual plan to guide, predict and prioritize the City's growth. The current KGMS (2019-2021+) includes 43 plans of subdivision and over 20 intensification areas within its 2 -year time frame. Of the 43 plans of subdivision, 27 are approved or in circulation at the time of the KGMS report. 16 are identified as future plans. Intensification areas are focused in the Urban Growth Centre (City Commercial Core community), mixed use corridors though the Central Neighbourhoods region, and various mixed use centres and nodes throughout the City. Plans of subdivision are planned in 11 growth area communities throughout the City, primarily in the south-west portion of the City limits. Specific growth areas will be hi -lighted in the Critical Needs Assessments of each planning community. Growth: Intensification The City of Kitchener is changing from outward growth to upward. Sprawling greenfield developments are transitioning to core area infill developments, and with it comes a need to manage these rapidly intensifying communities. The KGMS outlines and prioritizes the Urban Growth Centres and expected 17 ■„■r growth. Beyond the Urban Growth Centre boundaries there are still highly intensified areas planned around the Region's Light Rail Transit system. ,T •� °■i These are known as Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs), or former) ' j Y PARTS f �0T'1 �■ e r (Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations). Kitchener has completed three of eft ” these plans including Central Stations, Midtown and Rockway. There are three FIT r.Q�� major areas remaining - Fairway, Block Line and Sportsworld. 7 .. rt��FO eerrm The plans are intended to guide potential growth around the LRT stations rrftIW ' I r w to ensure it is done so stably and with expectations of public realm tIf r t � improvements - infrastructure, pedestrian enhancements, streetscapes, ._ n , �� r r t NAtransportation and public park space. r r t rj rrir-O r �M Providing park land in intensification areas is an integral component of rrIr-, - high density city living, but providing it in areas of intense growth is very NJ r f" challenging. Intensifications typically fall under the Site Plan applicationF r t I process, which outlines theconstraints to creating park land in association 't ' I � with the proposed develop ment. p *� i This is a critical understanding when setting expectations of local parks in communities within these areas of intensification, and the primary reason why evaluating individual communities is necessary for developing a realistic parks _ plan. G� -4 1 C 6[ C 6 'I 54 Park Planning�t f 3 City of Kitchener Park P!ar,rinci �y S �- -- -* � .' 7-4Schlegel(Z�- / it LRY � i � . • 4"y�'.�r. Oxy '.���yyJ r 14:4 C 1 •moi V' ., 'rv^ _� 4 J16 r i 4 „r a Strategy Introduction Quantity of Parks > Creating Parks > Gaps in Parks > Updating Tools The strategy of Spaces is to establish a target park provision for the city and understand where that provision is not being met. Using updated park classifications and measurement techniques, park provisions and specific community analysis can be completed that are both realistic and achievable. Targeting a park provision will combine both the current inventory of park space in Kitchener and the boundaries of park policy provided by the Province and applied through the City's by-law and policy tools. Once the target is set, it can be applied to each community to determine where the critical park needs are, and help shape priority communities based on an equitable park distribution. City of Kitchener Understanding Park Provisions To date the provision of parks has been developed and approved independently of the Planning regulations determining their limits. These Planning regulations have been the primary means of acquiring and funding the purchase of parkland. To achieve a realistic and sustainable target, the two should align as closely as possible. The previous section of this document introduced the metric of square meters per resident as a tool to measure park provisions. In order to convert the Planning Act legislation metric of hectares per unit, an average persons per household is required. The average persons per household in Kitchener is 2.5 according to 2020 census data, and ranges within the planning communities from 1.6 (City Commercial Core) to 3.4 (Laurentian West). Provision Conversions Applying 2.5 persons per household to the Planning Act alternative rate maximums illustrates both current provisions and target provisions: • 15.0 sq.m. per person. 2010 Parks Strategic Plan target for neighborhood parks (1.5 hectares per 1,000 residents); • 13.3 sq.m. per person. Maximum park dedication achievable through land dedications (1 hectare per 300 units); • 10.1 sq.m. per person. Average neighbourhood and community park per resident; and • 8.5 sq.m. per person. Maximum park dedication achievable through cash -in -lieu dedications (1 hectare per 500 units + non-residential dedications). Page 94 of 317 Understanding Park Provisions Establishing the Maximum Provision Past practices have established that new park land is primarily created through development processes. Combining the maximum rates of parkland built into these processes through the Planning Act, we can set our understanding of a maximum provision between 8.5 and 13.3 square meters per person. As the City starts to see development shift from subdivision focused to infill type development, the City will see the maximum provision of park land move toward the lower bound of 8.5 scl.m. per person on average. Three critical pieces of information can be overlaid to illustrate possible local park provisions: current practices, current city-wide average provision, and the theoretical maximum provision in the Planning Act: Park Provision Ranges Planning Act Maximum Planning Act Maximum Current CIL Collection Rate (1:500, 8.5 sq.m. per person) (1:300, 13.3 sq.m. per person) (0-2 sq.m. per person) 3.75 7.5 11.25 15 I I i � I i Typical yield of Subdivision 5% Cap City Average Provision (4-7 sq.m. per person) (10.1 sq.m. per person) City of Kitchener Page 95 of 317 Understanding Park Provisions Other Considerations on a Maximum Provision Theoretical maximums have been established in two scenarios. Applying practical knowledge and current City practices to these figures can further refine a realistic expectation on park service in new and existing communities within the City of Kitchener Influence Description or Examples Effect on Applicable Applicable Maximum to New to Existing Provision Communities Communities Park Dedication Reductions, Exemptions or Caps Downtown Kitchener Exemption place since Su ds ca Subdivision lands capped at 5% of land area Land Values Taking cash -in -lieu from one community does not equal the same land area in another Use of Park Trust Fund Every dollar of cash -in -lieu dedication used in capital programs will reduce park provision level Tax Based or Other Funding Programs Funding above and beyond the park dedication program Value Based Dedication Acquiring lands of low market value or otherwise undevelopable for park use o Existing City Lands Utilizing existing city held properties for park use (e.g. surface parking lots, other o facilities) 60 Strategy Page 96 SPIFFY Targets Explored Based on the past practice in Kitchener and existing legislation, we have explored what the potential future provisions of local parkland are relying on development processes exclusively to acquire parkland. Understanding maximum provision is vital in informing what a target that is both realistic and achievable could be. It is expected that a target established above these levels will require using non-traditional tools to acquire parkland at a greater rate than what is possible under development processes. Conversely, a target below these bounds is more realistically achieved based on the existing tools used to secure parkland. Critically a target does not necessarily reflect adequate levels or a sufficiency of parkland. The target also does not necessarily need to reflect all land that functions as a park space. For example, adequacy could be met in certain communities through urban plazas, hydro corridors, school grounds, and cemeteries among other alternative open spaces, that can add significant value to the park system that are above and beyond minimum levels established by a target. A target should be seen more as a benchmark against which policy and process can be established, and against which progress can be measured. A lower target is indicative of relying on existing process, whereas a higher target suggests willingness to explore other sources and process to build a high proportion of parkland for communities in the future. Gildner Green (2019) Targets Explored Provincial Context Typically, municipalities will benchmark target park provisions with other municipalities of similar size and location Similar data is available throughout the province, however it is important to recognize that the very definition of park space can be variable between cities. Comparing specific park categories (Local parks, in this case) can be even more challenging. Further, each city or town will have its own definitions and categories to measure their success. Kitchener's existing target is 15.0 sq.m. per person specifically for Neighbourhood Parks. Some municipalities have similar Local Park targets (Waterloo and Mississauga), others have overall park targets (Guelph and Hamilton) and some employ no targets at all (Ottawa and Toronto) As a baseline figure, according to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2010), every city is recommended to provide a minimum of 9 sq.m. of urban green space for each person, provided it is accessible, safe and functional. An ideal amount of urban green space can be generously provided to as much as 50 sq.m. per person. Kingston Guelph Waterloo Brampton Ottawa Thunder Bay JW Kitchener Hamilton Mississauga (I -- Richmond Hill I Toronto 0 10 0 Park Provision (sq.m. per person) Source: Canadian City Parks Report 2021 62 Strategy Planned Parks* *estimated from 2021 Parks Report data ITarget Provision (where one exists) Page 98 SP15TY Targets Explored Applying Planning Tools to Existing Provisions Comparative metrics can provide some level of guidance and goal posts to target, but the right provision for Kitchener should be established within its' own community context and what is achievable based on its' funding regime. We know the limitations of acquisition tools, and we know what the City's current provisions are. Illustrating both on the same scale shows that it is not possible to maintain the City's overall Planned parkland provisions. Planned Park Provisions Park Provision (sq.m. per person) 0 7.5 15 Local Parks Passive (Neighbourhood & Community) M Maximum Planning Act Provisions Park Provision (sq.m. per person) 0 7.5 15 • Existing Community Max. City Average Provision (8.5 sq.m. per person) (10.1 sq.m. per person) City New Community Max. (13.3 sq.m. per person) 22.5 Legacy / Total - 26.8 22.5 City of Kitchener sltralbw�)9 Of 35a Target Provisions Recommended Target An overall target for all Planned Park space is not a practical or realistic benchmark to set. Stating status quo as the preferred method embeds a requirement to acquire parkland at the current provision level of 26.2 sq.m. per person. Regardless of population growth we know this is unattainable with the limitations of park land dedication. Target provisions are then based on each category of park types: Maintain 10 Strategic sq.m. per person Acquire and expand passive recreational spaces, including greenways and stream networks, under the guidance of the Cycling & Trails Master Plan (2020), PARTS Central (2016) & Midtown/ Rockway (2017), and the Stormwater Master Plan (2016). Maintain the current City wide average provision of 10.1 sq m per person for local park provision for all future development. It is recognized that the ability to achieve this equitable across the City is complex as the City shifts towards infill type development. City and Legacy park provisions are considered strategic and not linked to a per capita analysis. Expansion or accommodation of population growth will be addressed within Places 64 Strategy Page 100 Sffff Provision Objectives Recognizing Areas of Growth The City of Kitchener expects highly intensified areas of the city to be developed surrounding the Light Rail Transit system. Planning is in place to guide that development through the use of Major Transit Station Area planning (MTSA's). MTSA's provide boundaries of intensification, and by overlaying with Planning Communities and their park provisions, we can establish park land provision objectives of each community that are realistic and achievable within the 20 year growth projection window. These provisions reflect the practical limitations of land values, land availability in the communities of intensification, and their existing park land provisions. Partial MTSA Parks Objective: Baseline Parks Objective: 8 10 sq.m. per person sq.m. per person Communities that fall entirely within an Communities that transition between an All areas outside of the MTSA that are MTSA with highly intensified residential MTSA with a mix of urban and suburban predominently suburban with non - growth expected. residential populations transit based pockets of increased density Example Communities: Downtown, King Example Communities: Vanier, Central East, Mill Courtland Frederick, Mt Hope Huron Park Example Communities: Country Hills, Bridgeport West, Westmount Knollwood Park (2015) Applying Target Provisions On average, all new development will reduce the City's overall park provision in existing communities. To maximize the potential of park dedication and park development, the City needs to guide acquisitions and investments to the areas of highest needs. Identifying those higher needs communities is the first step. In evaluating each community, the following principles will be employed throughout the community analysis: Principles of Critical Needs Communities: 1. Parkland for all residents is equal. No resident should be entitled to more or less public recreational opportunities; 2. Equity is established through priority of park acquisition strategies, where park deficiencies exist; 3. Equity metrics are established as median household income and percentage of apartment dwellings within a community. These are two objective measures that indicate a communities reliance on local, publicly available space for recreational purposes. 4. Non-residential communities will not be explored in detail in the critical needs assessment as there are no local parks nor significant population. They include Victoria North, Trillium Industrial Park, Pioneer Tower East, South Plains, Trussler, Huron Park and Dundee. Should future residential development occur in these communities, park dedication as land through development will be the priority. Foxglove Park (2022) Page 102 of 317 Critical Needs Areas Data can provide the framework but a qualitative analysis is necessary to form the City's park acquisition strategies. Communities will be evaluated based on Critical Needs Assessments in two forms: Park Acquisition Priority and Park Improvement Priority. Guiding Principle: EXPAND Priority of acquisitions is based on measurable data and qualitative analysis. The data is a combination of existing park supply per person, average annual household income, and percentage of apartment dwellings within a community. A qualitative lens is then applied to factor in unique considerations within each community - consideration of alternative park spaces in support of the park system primarily Regardless of priority, all significant growth development should be assessed for parkland needs and new provisions resulting from new residential units Guiding Principle: IMPROVE This is an equity driven analysis based on two factors from the acquisition priority: average annual household income and percentage of apartment dwellings within a community. 1^' This assessment provides a tool in determining capital improvements to existing park spaces. Decisions and — planning are subject to a wide range of influencing factors such as: asset management, conditions, sportsfield initiatives, stormwater infrastructure initiatives, and so on. This will be explored in depth through the Places document. City of Kitchener 9 EXPAND - Acquisition Priority Very low park supply, high residential density and high equity score. Engage in a detailed acquisition study as soon as possible. Low park supply and/or high residential density / equity score. Prioritize land taking through development opportunities. Variable conditions yielding need to assess land through future development applications. Low park supply, however conditions of the community result in park acquisition as a long term development driven goal. Focus on asset improvement to existing facilities regardless of parkland supply. 0 IMPROVE - Improvement Priority Combination of low average income and high percentage of apartment dwellings. Mix of both above or below average income and percentage of apartment dwellings. Communities that are above average income and low percentage of apartment dwellings. Community Information 00,000........ Total population (2019 Census) 00 000 Total neighbourhood & community park space sq.m. (excludes City and Legacy Parks such as Victoria, McLennan, Woodside, etc) I I II I Existing local parkland provision (colour matched to evaluation) Average annual household income (2019 Census) Percentage of dwellings that are apartments (2019 Census) FstrgtF91 E73 of 397 Critical Needs Areas Applying Equity to Community Park Provisions The graphic above is intended as a quick snapshot illustrating critical needs communities, combining park supply categories, relative household income and percentage of dwellings that are single or semi-detached homes. The graphic is data driven but should be used as a relative tool to understand where gaps of parkland and the communities that need them the most. This assessment is conducted using the current average park provision. Target provisions do not impact the assessment. Park Supply is based on square meters of local parks per resident. The larger the bar, the greater the park supply. Median Household Income is a relative quantity. Larger bars mean greater income. Dwelling type is the prevalence of single or semi-detached. Larger bars mean more single or semi-detached homes. The height of each communities bar graph represents its' local parks needs assessment. Smaller bars represent more critical needs communities, ordered left to right. 68 Strategy Page 104 SPIFFY U� v — -M a a O w O1 a a > S o o 80 SCcN U O Q O - 2 M W O E Yo -O U O ti U U UJ N _o 0E m u 0 J L — U U The graphic above is intended as a quick snapshot illustrating critical needs communities, combining park supply categories, relative household income and percentage of dwellings that are single or semi-detached homes. The graphic is data driven but should be used as a relative tool to understand where gaps of parkland and the communities that need them the most. This assessment is conducted using the current average park provision. Target provisions do not impact the assessment. Park Supply is based on square meters of local parks per resident. The larger the bar, the greater the park supply. Median Household Income is a relative quantity. Larger bars mean greater income. Dwelling type is the prevalence of single or semi-detached. Larger bars mean more single or semi-detached homes. The height of each communities bar graph represents its' local parks needs assessment. Smaller bars represent more critical needs communities, ordered left to right. 68 Strategy Page 104 SPIFFY I I I I ✓� L 'O 0 L L — x o a ° 00 m ° > > a O o ° 00 E w L °o o w w Z L N 3 N -Y o > w Z f= TN C W C C J S O W O 12Z c O O L -O JO .Y Q W Q FO d u000 0 a N C Community Examples: Commercial Core (Downtown) Population of Downtown is relatively low at 2,685 Kitchener's downtown is characterized by its higher densities of residential space (93% apartments) - therefore lower score for dwelling type Kitchener's downtown is in the lower third of total household income ($51,000), leading to low income score Local parks downtown are currently provided at 4.7 q,m, per person, well below average Final Result: low score, and high needs community for expanded park services Cherry Hill Population of Cherry Hill is relatively low at 3,118 Cherry Hill has a mix of building types, about half (53%) apartments - therefore a relatively low score for dwelling type Cherry Hill is in the lower third of total household income ($53,300), leading to low income score Local parks in Cherry Hill are currently provided at 15.3 sq.m. per person, well above average Final Result: mid-level score, need for park services likely improvement based Community Size w v rno Total Eo ulattion .-----------: (proportponal) E 2� Equity Lens W Eo Median ho Behold income (relative) Dwelling type (% single or semi) x Local Park Supply a M Above city wide average ° 0 Approximately average 2 Below average 0 Well below average V1 Critically below average E .R Forest Heights Population of Forest Heights is the second highest at 15,548 Forest Heights has a very high rate of singe and semi detached homes (93% combined) - therefore higher score for dwelling type Forest Heights is in the higher third of total household income ($100,500), giving a high income score Local parks in Forest Heights are currently provided at 11.6 sq.m. per person, above the city's average Final Result: high score, and low needs community for expanded park services City of Kitchener Fstr'tgtF97)5 of 399r Critical Needs Areas The following is a summary of the residential communities and order in which they will be addressed. All detailed pages are located in the Appendices of this report. Note that specific property acquisitions will not be assessed within this report. This document will serve as a guide and justification for property acquisition strategies, and highlight opportunities and constraints in each location. L LtJ $ [ �1 70 Strategy Page 106 SPIT" Acqui- sition Priority Improve- ment Priority Local Park Provision (sq.m. per per- son) - Alpine Highland West Medium 2.6_MJ $67,686 41 Auditorium None Medium 16.0 $85,948 23% Bridgeport East None Low 25.4 $101,025 14% Bridgeport North Bridgeport West None Low Low • $134,531 $91,571 7% 26% Brigadoon Low Low 4.0 $118,949 5% Cedar Hill None Low 34. $$40,321 85% Central Frederick Medium Medium 5.8 $70,359 49% Centerville Chicopee Medium Medium 9.1 $71,659 31% Cherry Hill None 15.3 $53,373 53% City Comm. Core Civic Centre Mt Hope Huron Park None 4.7 $50,968 $48,959 93% 84% Country Hills None Medium 10.3 $66,904 47% Country Hills East ow Medium 7.3 $80,625 49% Country Hills West None Low 16.0 $95,944 9% Doon South Rockway Low 4.1 $138,542 3% Eastwood None Medium 24.9 $67,395 49% Fairfield tow Medium 5.6 $63,333 50% Forest Heights None Low 11.6 $100,519 8% Forest Hill None Low 13.6 $76,294 22% Grand River North Medium Low 2.7 $98,315 11% Grand River South Low Low 7.9 $122,523 5% Heritage Park I Low Medium 8.7 $61,356 47% Hidden Valley ILow Low 1 2.6 $228,000 4% 70 Strategy Page 106 SPIT" Acqui- sition Priority Improve- ment Priority Local Park Provision (sq.m. per per- son) •- r. Highland West None PW 10.8 $101,374 10% Huron South None Low 7.4 $105,110 9% Idlewood None 11.9 $116,424 7% King East KW Hospital • $52,767 $58,817 57% 67% Laurentian Hills None Medium 9.8 $68,871 26% Laurentian West Low Low 5.8 $101,299 3% Lower Doon None Low 14.3 $83,469 15% Meinzinger Park None Low 56.2 $71,235 35% Mill Courtland Medium 6.4 $59,894 48% Mt Hope Huron Park None Medium 9.6 $63,912 46% Northward None Medium 14.9 $55,158 41% Pioneer Park None Medium 26.2 $75,872 28% Pioneer Tower West None Low 1 13.6 $186,111 1% Rockway Medium Low 4.5 $72,262 39% Rosemount Medium Low 2.5 $70,279 37% Rosenberg Low Low 6.8 $100,794 11% Southdale None 14.0 $50,735 60% St. Marys None Medium 17. $61,374 40% Stanley Park None Medium 12.3 $61,183 41% Vanier - 7.8 $54,530 61% Victoria Hills None 8.4 $55,573 48% Victoria Park Medium $57,516 72% Westmount Medium Medium 1 5.3 $71,020 51% 70 Strategy Page 106 SPIT" Critical Needs Areas Acquisition Priorities In total 25 communities are recommended for further acquisition strategies, detailing specific parkland acquisition methods, locations, costs, and timing. Approaches to acquisition in each community may include direct purchase, development driven, mixed use or re -use of existing City -owned land, or strategic partnerships with school grounds to close each communities gap in park provisions: Alpine Bridgeport West Doon South 0 Mill Courtland Vanier 0 Denotes Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) or, QPartial Major Transit Station Area * Pioneer Tower East is a non-residential community within an MTSA (Sportsworld). Inclusion as a Critical Need Area reflects future residential growth and its immediate need for public park land. QCentral Frederick Downtown Kitchener Centerville Chicopee (Core & Civic Centre) Grand River North King East 0 KW Hospital 0 Pioneer Tower East* Alpine Bridgeport West Doon South 0 Mill Courtland Vanier 0 Denotes Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) or, QPartial Major Transit Station Area * Pioneer Tower East is a non-residential community within an MTSA (Sportsworld). Inclusion as a Critical Need Area reflects future residential growth and its immediate need for public park land. QCentral Frederick Brigadoon Centerville Chicopee Country Hills East Grand River North Fairfield Rockway Grand River South Rosemount Heritage Park Victoria Park Hidden Valley Westmount Laurentian West Rosenberg City of Kitchener f590tF9V7 of XV Critical Needs Areas & Objectives Applying Growth Projections Community based targets can further assist property acquisition strategies. One of the most challenging aspects of developing additional park space is intensification. Not only does it limit opportunities to acquire parkland within development applications, but also significantly increases competition to acquire land that is readily available as park space and dramatically increases population in much shorter timeframes. Overlaying future intensification areas to the existing provisions provides greater clarity on what those targets can be. The graph shown here illustrates communities within each Major Transit Station Area (MTSA), and introduces target park provisions for each grouping: 01 A pine Central Frederick Country Hills East Vanier Mt. Hope Huron Park Southdale Cherry Hill Victoria Park Bridgeport West Rosemount Hidden Valley Grand River North Brigadoon Doon South Rockway Westmount Fairfield Laurentian West Rosenberg Huron South Grand River South Victoria Hills Heritage Park Centreville Chicopee Highland West Laurentian Hills Country Hills Bridgeport North Forest Heights Idlewood Stanley Park Forest Hill Pioneer Tower West Lower Doon Northward Country Hills West Auditorium St. Mary's Eastwood Bridgeport East Pioneer Park Meinzinger Park -Lakeside 0 *Pioneer Tower East is a non-residential community within an MTSA (Sportsworld). There is no current population or parkland at the time of this report Objective:MTSA Parks I sg.m. per person MTSA Parks Objective: 8 sq.m. per person Baseline Parks Objective: 10 sq.m. per person 10 2(° 31 a 60 Local Park Provision (sq.m. per person) 72 Strategy Page 108 of 317 20 Year Park Provisions Bringing together growth forecasts, park provision targets and the highest needs communities (combining both Critical and High from the previous page), we can project the amount of park space required over a 20 year span to reach the variable targets of Kitchener's highest need communities: Civic Centre King East 4.0 4.0 KW Hospital 16,600 4.0 +4,631 City Commercial Core 16,700 4.0 +6,285 Mill Courtland Alpine 14,500 4.0 +506 21,100 Vanier Bridgeport West Doon South 0 1 2 = 31,000 20 year population growth 1 1 1 1 within the community (2021-41) Square meters of Local 1 1 1 1 Parks to achieve target by 2041 1 1 Community based Local Park Provision Target 8.0 +2,379 21,800 8.0 Local Park Provision (sq.m. per person) Note: Growth data referenced from 2018 PLUM projections enchanced by Kitchener Growth Management Strategy data. _10.0 City of Kitchener FStrgteng of Ya ,� •?'f„� d t .:r' 1c r .. ` ....,Wi/'111. ^�i�i 44 k 1 � - LL Park Ded40 ication Update c I - 4- 'a- a Introduction Quantity of Parks > Creating Parks > Gaps in Parks > Updating Tools How will the City achieve the target park provision in its' critical needs communities? The most important tool is the City's Park Dedication By -Law. The By-law is enacted under provincial legislation and does have it's limitations. It does however afford the flexibility to increase or decrease park provisions under the established maximum park provisions. The Park Dedication Update section will outline how other municipalities craft their dedication by-laws under the same provincial legislation, evaluate the relative costs of Park Dedication placed on development in context, and make specific recommended changes to by-law itself. The By-law is a technical document and critical in providing Park spaces in Kitchener. Each clause within it can have dramatic long term impacts to the City's park provision. City of Kitchener Page 111 of 317 Provincial Context Evaluating other municipalities' policies can aid in the direction of Kitchener's own park dedication policies. In the end, the City of Kitchener and other municipalities aim to balance the park needs of the community and development targets set for density and revitalization areas. Benchmarking with other municipalities does come with the same caveats as with establishing parkland targets. There are drivers, influences, targets, and history that the statistics will not represent. Applying the maximum dedication values according to the Planning Act is only one approach. More often, municipalities establish planning related initiatives that provide reductions in park dedication requirements as incentives for development types, locations, density, etc. As a result there are a wide variety of methods of applying park dedication across the province as each municipality develops their own priorities and targets. Recall that in Section 3: Strategy, the maximum dedication allowable under the Planning Act will reduce Kitchener's park provision. Any and all reductions to parkland dedication is a result of other city initiatives or priorities to provide incentive for development. Generally all methods of applying park dedication in the Province fall into 5 common categories 1. Planning Act Maximum — maintain strict application of the Planning Act across all development types (e.g. 1/500 rate, non- negotiable). 2. General Reductions — dedication rates are reduced from the Planning Act Maximum (e.g. 0.15/300 or flat percentage rates). 3. Density Reductions — dedication rates decrease as the density of residential units increases (e.g. 1/300 rate for first 60 units, 0.5/300 for next 60 units, etc.). 4. Caps - predetermined caps based on the land area or cash maximum (e.g. 20% of land, up to $200,000 total). 5. Exemptions —various exemptions/exceptions are implemented in established for areas of growth, intensification, protection, etc. (e.g. dedications waived in downtown cores). Provincial Context Cost per Residential Unit As shown by the Site Plan Application data, less than 2% of Kitchener's site plan development applications yield parkland. The remainder and vast majority result in cash -in -lieu values. The previous chart outlined the various methods used to calculate and convert park dedication to cash -in -lieu requirements. The end result in each municipality is a cost per residential rate. The final "unit rate" is influenced by both the dedication rate (e.g 1 hectare per 500 residential units, or less) and cash -in -lieu conversion methods (e.g. individual appraisals vs. pre -determined book values). For municipalities that utilize book values or fixed fees, this conversion is predictable. For those that apply either individual appraisals or land based park dedication requirements (e.g. 10% of land as the alternative rate), the "unit rate" becomes a variable range and cannot be benchmarked. Below reflects the current unit rates of comparable municipalities: Note that all municipalities are also required to update their park dedication by-laws and park plans under the same provincial legislative deadline. Values reflect rates from 2021, prior to on-going updates: Fixed or Predictable Fees Richmond Hill Brampton $11,500 $0 • $4,250 $15,000 Kitchener Burlington Vaughan Mississauga Guelph $2,718 $5,500 $8,500 $11,040 (Highest Valuation Area) $11,119 City of Kitchener Park DedicatiolDygoalel 3 of JU Kitchener Context Cost per Residential Unit Park dedication as a cash -in -lieu contribution is one of three potential development charges levied on development - development charges (DC), community benefits charges (CBC), and park dedication (PD). Community benefits charges is a new provincially legislated tool introduced through Bill 108 and refined through subsequent revisions of the Planning Act. The CBC can be applied to a maximum of 4% of the site area. The City of Kitchener does not currently have a CBC by-law in place and does not apply the charge. The latest background study on Kitchener Development Charges was conducted in 2019 with rates current to December 1, 2020. The following chart lists all development charges levied on residential units, including Park Dedication and three development charges - the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo, and Waterloo School Boards: $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 a a, s $20,000 u $10,000 $0 $18,730 Existing Proposed Singles & Semi's 78 Park Dedication Update W Existing Proposed Townhouses $17,085 Existing Proposed Multiples Page 114 Sffff Kitchener Context - Downtown Background All development that occurs, and has occurred in Downtown Kitchener since 2008 has been exempt from all parkland dedication requirements. This is stated in Chapter 273.1.4, identified as the "Downtown Kitchener Community Improvement Area". The boundaries of the Improvement Area are nearly identical to those of the City Commercial Core planning community, with only minor variations. For the purposes of park assessment, the City Commercial Core statistics will be considered Downtown Parks. Park dedication within the Downtown will be evaluated as follows: • Past Development and Incentive Review; • Alternative Rate Options; and • Final Park Dedication Requirement. Downtown Kitchener (2021) Kitchener Context - Downtown Past Development & Incentive Review Past developments can be evaluated to determine an estimated park dedication value that was not collected since the incentive was established. To do so, developments prior to July 2016 and following July 2016 will be separated due to the change in the residential alternative rate instituted by Bill 73 of the Planning Act. Thus, reducing the alternative rate from 1 hectare per 300 units to 1 hectare per 500 units for cash -in -lieu park dedication applications. This does not affect non-residential downtown applications. It is assumed that all applications would yield cash -in -lieu dedication following July 2016, and current policy book values would be applied to the sites: *Value represents applications reviewed for park dedication purposes. The City Commercial Core has an average of 1.6 persons per household, therefore it can be said that approximately 3,800 residents have, or will, reside in the commercial core without any contribution to public parks. Using the park supply maximum (8.5 sq.m. per person), the parkland required should have represented 3.23 hectares of additional public park. From 2016 to 2021 approximately $7,000,000 of cash -in -lieu of parkland has not been collected or required during the span of the development incentive. Based on the updated value of Medium Density Residential (<2 FSI) land use, the value projected represents approximately 0.9 hectares of public parkland purchasing equivalent today. 80 Park Dedication Update Page 116 SPY" Kitchener Context - Downtown Alternative Rate Option The principle of cash -in -lieu of land for park dedication is to collect funding at the same property value as if it were developed in situ. Cash -in -lieu, in theory, will equal land at the time of development, ensuring the same amount of land can be purchased at a later date. Applying the land value rates described in sub -section 2 can create cash -in -lieu values of up to $86,000 per unit in the most extreme cases. These values are well beyond the Provincial examples and in the case of 10+ FSI Residential uses, would be over 7 times the City's development charge for multiple residential units. Applying land values to both Downtown and Urban Growth Areas will not be the recommendation of this report. The preferred method for cash -in -lieu calculation for Downtown & Urban Growth Centres is a unit rate cap. This improves predictability of fees for the development community while maintaining the necessary link to park land provision for residents. Other options employed throughout the province such as land caps, reductions and density considerations will break this critical link. It is in Kitchener's best interest to maintain a consistent per unit rate regardless of the size, shape or density of any given development. Determining the Rate Setting a capped rate must balance context, development pro forma, other Kitchener initiatives, and the future buying power of the fees collected. Setting a cap will limit the future purchase of lands of greater value (e.g. zoning that permits upwards of 5 FSI Residential development) for parks purposes. In the case of Downtown and Urban Growth Centres, it is expected that a cap will be below the market value of the land under development particularly for high density residential properties. Committing to a cap will eliminate those properties from the city's buying power to acquire them as park land in acquisition efforts. Therefore, a capped fixed rate can be set with the understanding that properties of greater zoning permissions will be excluded from future park purchases. City of Kitchener Park DedicatiolDygoaleI 7 of At Dedication By -Law Updates It is the intent of Spaces to outline critical changes to the existing park dedication by-law and policy. Minor changes will be addressed in the by-law document itself, not necessarily identified in Spaces. The following changes will be addressed in Spaces: 1. Parkland Dedication Policy Repeal 2. Land Use Appraisal Values 3. Acquisition Tools 4. Downtown Kitchener S. Park Dedication Rates 6. Off Site Land as Park Dedication 7. Development Incentives through Dedication Reductions 8. Utilizing Park Dedication 9. Subdivision Processes 10.Other Policy Changes 1. Parkland Dedication Policy & By -Law Repeal The City of Kitchener uses two documents to enact and guide park dedication within the city respectively: 1. Park Dedication By -Law, Chapter 273 — Enacts the Provincial Policy; and 2. Parkland Dedication Policy (2012) — Guides the application of park dedication. Both the Park Dedication By -Law (Chapter 273) and Parkland Dedication Policy (2012) will be repealed and replaced with a comprehensive update of both, including all of the critical changes to be outlined in Spaces as well as minor modifications to improve transparency and clarity within the existing document. 82 Park Dedication Update Page 118 of 317 Dedication By -Law Updates 2. Land Appraisal Values The Parkland Dedication Policy (2012) uses static book values to determine cash -in -lieu of land parkland dedication requirements. They are organized by generic land use categories (e.g. Residential Apartment, Townhouse, Commercial, Industrial, etc.) as follows: The intent of average book values is based on the foundation of cost savings and transparency. Each application prior to 2010 were subject to individual land appraisals commissioned by the City from the park trust fund. Using book values eliminates the need for individual appraisals and creates a predictable fee for land developers. Book values will remain in the Park Dedication portfolio, however updated to current values of land and adjusted categories to align with the geographic market trends There is no inflation or adjustment metrics included in Kitchener's book values. These book values were updated in 2010 and remain the same values used today, severely undervaluing land for park dedication purposes. The book values will be excluded from the By -Law document and form an appendix to an updated Council Policy subject to annual updating. The categories and values of the chart on this page will be used for cash -in -lieu of land park dedication requirements, following approval of the by-law update. The By -Law and Policy will retain any development to provide an independent appraisal for cash -in -lieu of park land consideration. Category CIL per Residential Unit Retail / Neighbourhood Commercial $3,830,000 N/A Industrial $1,853,000 N/A Employment / Office $2,348,000 N/A Residential - Low Density $2,348,000 $4,696 Residential — Medium (<2 FSI) $3,830,000 $7,660 Residential - Medium, Mixed Use (<2 FSI) $5,931,000 $11,862 Residential - High, 5-10 FSI $19,768,000 $39,536 Residential - High, 10+ FSI $43,243,000 $86,486 City of Kitchener Park DedicatiolDygoaleI 9 of W Dedication By -Law Updates 3. Acquisition Tools & Actions Opportunities to acquire properties for the use of public parks can be direct acquisition strategies (e.g. purchase), or passive acquisition strategies (e.g. requirement of redevelopment, use surplus lands, etc.). In either direct or passive strategies, a consistent evaluation method is necessary to determine if park investment is warranted on any given property or development. This tool will be included in the Park Dedication Policy as a metric to evaluate site specific opportunities that may or may not be forecast. It is also to provide city staff the means to quickly, consistently, and objectively evaluate pursuit or non -pursuit of land for park purposes. In addition to updating the Policy and By-law to reflect goals of park acquisition through development processes, a Park Acquisition Committee is recommended to be struck cross departmentally within the City of Kitchener. The team will focus on actively pursuing potential properties warranting consideration for park acquisition, and providing recommendations to Council accordingly. • Located within any community with a park acquisition priority (Low, Medium, High, Critical) • Development creates a need for park acquisition by reducing the community park provision below the target provision of 10 sq.m. per person. Stage 2 All must apply: • Suitable for use as public park land, in • Connects to existing or planned park current or remediated states; or open space system; • Free and clear from all encumbrances, in current or remediated states, unless otherwise deemed acceptable by the Director of Parks and Cemeteries. • Compliments existing recreational features and assets within the community; • Within 500m walking distance of the development or residences it is intended to serve; • Provides a space for people of all ages, genders, cultures, religions, abilities and incomes; • Suitable for future community needs 84 Park Dedication Update Page 120 SP15TY Dedication By -Law Updates 4. Downtown Kitchener Capped Park Dedication Requirements The Downtown Kitchener Community Improvement Area development incentive is recommended to be removed and replaced with a fixed park dedication rate. Establishing a fixed rate for Downtown Kitchener is representative of both Urban Growth Centres and Major Transit Station areas across the City. It is understood that these areas of intensification will represent the highest land values within the City based on their zoning permissions and proximity to transit. Setting a fixed rate for Downtown therefore can be considered a maximum cap applicable to all developments regardless of geographic location and Planning context. The park dedication policy will be updated to reflect a maximum cash -in -lieu park dedication of $11,862 per residential, non-specific to geography or planning boundary. This value represents the Medium, Mixed Use residential property use as the maximum value, establishing that higher density property uses will not be pursued at park land, or will be done so acknowledging the reduced provision rates. Downtown Kitchener (2021) 317 Dedication By -Law Updates S. Park Dedication Rates In order to maintain the maximum park provision of 8.5 sq.m. per person, it is critical to maintain the maximum dedication rates as stipulated by the Planning Act for all development types. Local context (Downtown as previously illustrated) and other incentives will deviate from this maximum. The justification for reductions to park dedication are not supported by park supply data. However, it is recognized that reductions can be used as a tool to support various programs and development types as directed by City of Kitchener Council. Cost per Residential Unit The following information represents the expected cash -in -lieu value of a residential unit applying the 1 hectare per 500 unit alternative rate with updated land valuations: Kitchener Kitchener Kitchener (low density) (medium density) (cap) $0 $4,696 $7,660 $11,862 $15,000 • • • • Kitchener (2010) $2,718 86 Park Dedication Update Page 122 8ffFY Dedication By -Law Updates Updated Cost per Residential Unit Updating the previous chart showing both development charges (DC) and park dedication (PD) yields the following revised per unit costs to develop in Kitchener: $60,OL $50,000 $40,000 D $30,000 a a ai i $20,000 $10,000 $0 74�' $31,376 Fxictinn $2,748 $23,449 $15,352 $7,660 Proposed Existine, Singles & Semi's $2,748 Proposed Townhouses Existing Proposed Multiples City of Kitchener Park DedicatiolDyg4aJe23 of 1317 Dedication By -Law Updates 6. Off Site Land as Park Dedication In order to provide flexibility within the development and park dedication process to achieve the goal of creating park space as the priority of Spaces, an off-site land policy will be introduced within the By -Law and Policy update. If a development is to provide land as its park dedication requirement, it is expected to do so within the limits of the development. In applications where land is critical or high needs for park service delivery, dedication of land off-site may be pursued if mutually agreed upon by both the Developer and City of Kitchener. This policy will be optional for both the Developer and City to enter into. Off-site land must meet the same criteria as on-site land dedication, and considered land area based. Off-site land will be considered equal to land provided on-site, regardless of the property's market value. If the total park dedication cannot be met with off-site dedications, the remaining land requirement will apply to the development site and required as an additional cash -in -lieu dedication. In order to achieve the goals of this policy, a land-based evaluation is necessary to provide a potential financial incentive, while maintaining the standards of park space delivery equivalent to on-site park development. 88 Park Dedication Update Page 124 SPIFFY Dedication By -Law Updates 7. Incentives through Dedication Reductions Affordable Housing City of Kitchener Council Report CSD -15-085 -Development Incentives for Affordable Housing included a consideration to provide incentive to affordable housing initiatives through the reduction of park dedication requirements. Council elected not to pursue this as an incentive item with the following official resolution: That no action shall be taken in regards to investigating development incentives in the following areas: Surplus land policies; and Parkland dedication reduction incentives. In an updated Council Report COR -2022-104 - Housing for All Program Update - 2022 Year in Review, Priority 6 of aligning policies, processes and use of City land to facilitate more affordable housing lists a Parkland Dedication waiver policy for affordable housing developments. In support of Affordable Housing initiatives, the following adjustments are proposed in applying park dedication to recognized Affordable Housing projects: 1. Supportive Housing Initiatives are exempt from Park Dedication requirements 2. Affordable rental housing under Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) reduced to a maximum of 5% land area park dedication. The CMHC defines affordable rental housing as residential units monthly rent equal to or less than 80% of the average monthly rent of the Regional market, and registered with the City as such for a minimum of 15 years. Rendering of YWCA modular homes on Block Line Road, Kitchener (2021) Dedication By -Law Updates 8. Utilizing Park Dedication Acquisitions vs. Improvements The Parkland Dedication account, or Special Account in Planning Act terminology, has been a critical source of funding for a number of high-priority city-wide park development initiatives. Should this practice continue, the overall park provision will continue to decrease for every dollar of cash -in -lieu not used for acquisitions. It is necessary to direct 100% of the cash -in -lieu generated through park dedication back to park acquisition to maintain the projected maximum park provision of 8.5 sq.m. per person in existing communities. The park dedication account (referred to as the Parkland Reserve Fund in Kitchener budget processes) accounts for approximately $11,387,000 over the 10 year capital budget forecast within the 2021-2030 budget, representing 16% of the total Parks Capital Budget as a funding source This funding is spread over a variety of Development Charge funded growth projects. Allocation of the Parkland Reserve fund varies year to year. In 2021 and 2022 the total value distributed from the reserve fund is $691,000 and $588,000 respectively. In 2023 this increases to $2,069,000. 2023 is also the next available time frame to make funding adjustments within the budget planning review and approval cycle. It is recommended to discontinue the use of Parkland Reserve fund within capital project funding for the 2023 budget review and beyond. Full budgeting impacts to be determined through the budget review process. Strategies for compensating its' loss could include strategic transitioning to zero Parkland Reserve Fund contributions over a period of budget cycles, or increases of available development charges resulting from the removal of the mandatory 10% deduction within the Development Charges Act (resulting in higher recovery for eligible services including park development). 90 Park Dedication Update Page 126 SP15TY Dedication By -Law Updates 9. Subdivision Processes New Community Targets The priority for new communities is the establishment of Local parks that is at least on par with the City average provision. In order to reach the desired minimum, the current practice of applying a 5% land area cap will be discontinued. The City's current By -Law and Policy allow for the alternative rate to be applied within the subdivision process, therefore there is no change either document necessary. The Policy will be updated to reflect the targets established within Spaces. Future Development within Subdivision Multiple -residential lots within Plans of Subdivision are often the most challenging development type to address with park land dedication. These lots provide a range of potential residential units that are not known at the time of subdivision. Since this is also the time Park properties are sized and allocated, not knowing the number of residents can lead to lowered park provisions. In order to address this gap, the updated park dedication by- law will include the following language to calculate parkland dedication requirements on multiple residential blocks within plans of subdivision: [Total dedication requirements will be] in accordance with the number of dwelling units specified within multiple residential blocks on the proposed draft plan of subdivision; In cases where a specified number of units are not provided on multiple residential blocks within a draft plan of subdivision, the parkland requirement for each block shall be based on the maximum number of units allowed within the density range of each block. Subdivision Modifications Within the subdivision review process, significant changes can be proposed by the developer after the plan of subdivision has been reviewed and approved, including the proposed density and number of residential units. Modifications can introduce significant increases in projected population density that do not trigger any further park dedication requirements. The Park Dedication policy will be updated to reflect that park dedication will required to be recalculated with the receipt of modifications, and be the developers responsibility to rectify deficiencies in park supply below the New Community minimum target provision. City of Kitchener Park DedicatiolDygoaJ27 of 9'V Dedication By -Law Updates 10. Other By -Law &Policy Changes Accepting Parkland The updated Dedication By -Law will detail the terms in which the City of Kitchener will accept land as public park. The intent of this information is to provide staff decision making tools, reduce risks of acquiring unknown parcels, and ultimately increase the quality of public open space provided through developments, if applicable. Exclusion of Non-residential Development All non-residential development, inclusive of Commercial, Industrial and Institutional land uses, will not be required to provide park land or cash -in -lieu of park land for all proposed development types. The exemption applies to Commercial components of mixed-use land use developments. Non-residential cash -in -lieu contributes approximately 6% of the total cash value, and is expected to continue to decline as the Downtown exemption is removed and land values updated to market values. The Council policy will reflect this change, with the By-law remaining unchanged to allow the City to enable or disable this exemption in future considerations. Clarification of Consent Approval Calculation Method (Policy Item 2.1.) Through application of the park dedication policy, it was discovered that applying the alternative rate dedication requirement (1 hectare per 500 units) to applications under Committee of Adjustment Consent created unintentionally inflated dedication requirements. Consent applications are evaluated by their land frontage (per linear meter), and applying the per hectare calculation greatly increased property values. The dedication by-law will be updated to explicitly address consent items as only 5% (residential) or 2% (non-residential) dedication requirements. 92 Park Dedication Update Page 128 SP15'" Dedication By -Law Updates Removal of Previous Payment Exemption (Item 3.1.) Item 3.1. of the current park dedication policy currently exempts all development or redevelopment that has previously paid park dedication through cash -in -lieu or land dedication. This clause, if continued, could preclude many large residential developments based on any park dedication previously made. This clause will be updated to include provisions that the application is exempt if previous payments have been made, except: • There is a change in the proposed development, which would increase the density of the development or; • Land originally proposed and in use as commercial, institutional or industrial purposes is redeveloped for other purposes (e.g. Residential) Clarification of this clause will allow the City the proper tool to capture all new development, residential or otherwise, with a proportional increase in parkland requirement rather than an outright exemption. This change will align with provisions in the Planning Act. Transition Transition into the conditions of the updated Park Dedication By -Law and Policy will need to be considered. A formal transition arrangement will be completed as part of the final Park Dedication By -Law review and be reflected within the By -Law. It is the intent of the transition to acknowledge developments in advanced and financially committed stages of development, and avoid sudden changes in park dedication requirements causing those developments to stall or cease. City of Kitchener Park DedicatiolDygoaJ29 of 93r �, L C 6 IL ® �. Critical Needs Areas Legend *J Park Acquisition Priority Very low park supply, high residential density and high equity score. Engage in a detailed acquisition study as soon as possible. Low park supply and/or high residential density / equity score. Prioritize land taking through development opportunities. Variable conditions yielding need to assess land through future development applications. Low park supply, however conditions of the community result in park acquisition as a long term development driven goal. Focus on asset improvement to existing facilities regardless of parkland supply. Park Improvement Priority Combination of low average income and high percentage of apartment dwellings. Mix of both above or below average income and percentage of apartment dwellings. Communities that are above average income and low percentage of apartment dwellings. 0 Community Information • ............................... 13,125 i Total population ................................ 7,970sq.m. Total Local Park area Local parkland provision (colour matched to City mapping) z , Average annual household income (2019 Census) Percentage of dwellings that are ' apartments (2019 Census) Walkshed Analysis Each community map includes walkshed boundaries that take into account access to Local Park Space, including sidewalks, trails, roadways and general green space. The areas overlay barriers including major roadways, creeks, and railways. Existing or Proposed Trails Bus Stops ❑ City of Kitchener @d1331 of 9IR Critical Needs Areas Alpine QD Summary Alpine community contains only one Local park - Alpine Park (1). Alpine Park is uniquely subdivided by an existing woodlot, and shares a border with two adjacent school grounds (2). Through the school grounds there direct connection to Laurentian Trail (3) and McLennan Park (4). • The presence of Peter Hallman Ballyard (5) within Alpine is recognized as a City park facility that is gated, controlled and programmed for the exclusive use of sportsfeilds. It is representative of why City wide facilities are excluded from the park provision analysis, as there is no permitted entry into the park outside of hours that are scheduled for sport use, and no supporting recreational amenities. It is also isolated within an industrial area between Schneider Creek and CN Rail, further separating it from the residents of Alpine community. Conclusion (0 With large scale development opportunities likely limited, pursuing better connectivity to the school properties and promoting their campus improvements is the most achievable and realistic path to addressing the parkland deficiency within the community. 96 Appendix Page 132 SPf17 1 • 1 . 2.6sq.m./person d $54,530 ® 61 No. 3 1 Neighbourhood Community 1 City Legacy 1 2 0 City of Kitchener OPS3 of 97 Critical Needs Areas Auditorium QD Summary The Auditorium community contains two local parks, Knollwood (1) and Wallenberg (2). Knollwood Park has been reclassified as a Community Park through this evaluation. Enhanced community features were constructed in 2015 following a comprehensive park rehabilitation effort. Local parks are further supported by various community features within the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex (3), most notably the conversion of a track and field portion of Centennial field to a leash free dog park. The remaining recreational components of KMAC are indoor or fenced and controlled through facility scheduling (Centennial and Jack Couch Fields), and are not considered community recreational amenities. Auditorium shares its western boundary with King East (4), a community that is deemed a Critical needs community for park land. It is recognized that park spaces in Auditorium support neighoubrhoods within the King East community, and will reflect in its improvement priority Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives (e.g. sportsfield improvements or KMAC campus initiatives). 98 Appendix Page 134 SPFff No. 0 1 Neighbourhood Community city Legacy 1 School Grounds , Other Open Space 1� City of Kitchener Of 9 G NOPE0.0 E F T F PJE Oy � QPNOG P PJE GQFFN G PAN�p0.P e� GN StN 2,062 34,822 59,401 O E WGENe GEp0.GE�P� •'- OP35 of 99r Critical Needs Areas Bridgeport East Summary Bridgeport East is well above the city-wide average for local park provision (25.4 sq.m. per person) through 5 local parks - Schaefer (1), Sylvia (2), Marisa (3), Paige (4) and Tyson Park (5). The parks are well distributed through the community, though do offer similar recreational features (3 of the 5 contain playgrounds and trails, no other infrastructure present). Within the community are 2 additional City park facilities in Joe Thompson Sportsfield and Bridgeport Sportsfields (6). The ball diamonds and soccer fields are highly programmed and isolated from the community by Bridge St E., but are open to the public during non-active times. The parks do feature a raised pathway on the Grand River levee offering a unique vista of the river, adding value to community use. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 100 Appendix Page 136 of 317 1 2,245 2 5.4sq.m./person $101,025 ® 14% Passive Neighbourhood VA 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 City of Kitchener OP37 002DT Critical Needs Areas Bridgeport North QD Summary Being situated along the Grand River, the Bridgeport North community features sprawling naturalized areas (3) with direct connection to the banks of the Grand River and the Walter Bean Grand River Trail. The community features only one local park - River Ridge Park (1), sufficient in size and programming to service the community population, located centrally within the residential neighbourhoods of the community. Supporting River Ridge park is one of the City's 5 Legacy Parks - Kiwanis Park (2). Kiwanis is a vast park with a mix of both natural and planned features, notably the City's largest outdoor pool, one of four managed leash -free dog parks, and eight dedicated disc sport fields. The park also features non programmed amenities that support local use of the facility. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. 102 Appendix Page 138 Sffff 11.5sq.m./person $134,531 ® 7% f No. Sq.m. 4 148,133 Planned Parks 27,259 C City 1 Legacy1 504,550 C City of Kitchener Critical Needs Areas Bridgeport West Summary Bridgeport West is a critically under serviced community that features one local park - Lancaster Park (1) at only 800 square meters for its 1,415 population. The community is bounded on three sides by Highway 85 to the south, the Grand River to the east, and Bechtel Park (2) natural area to the west. This limits connectivity to bordering communities park spaces and increases the priority for acquisitions within the community borders. There are no passive recreational features within Bechtel Park natural area within the City of Kitchener boundaries. Bridgeport school grounds (3) does provide additional outdoor recreational support, but limited to the northern neighoburhoods of Bridgeport West. Additional open space is held by the Region of Waterloo at the former Grand Hotel site on Bridge St. (4), but is currently not programmed for public use requiring significant investment to allow for recreational amenities. Conclusion To address the shortfall of local and all planned park space within Bridgeport West, a target acquisition of approximately 12,000 square meters of local parkland is recommended. Targeted park space should be located near Lancaster Park to service the majority of the residential population within the community (5) As development continues to occur, it is recommended to pursue land where appropriate using the acquisition tool within this report. The 12,000 square meter target should be adjusted where development introduces increased population. u 104 Appendix Page 140 of 317 1 111,415 0.6sq.m./person 0 $91,571 ® 26% No. Natural Areas 2 Planned Parks 1 1 0 0 0 1 City of Kitchener@d1'41 OfWSr Critical Needs Areas Summary Brigadoon is defined by its vast natural areas Brigadoon Park and Woods (1) and Strasburg Creek (2) totaling over 46 hectares of land. Within Brigadoon Park is a maintained portion for local park use (3) containing almost all of the local park space. The remaining area is within Templewood Park (4), a parkette sized space adjacent to Brigadoon Park. Distribution of parks within the community is poor with a clear deficiency in the southern neighbourhoods. Brigadoon school grounds (5) does support these neighbhourhoods with outdoor recreational amenities to offset the lack of Local park space. The community is a targeted growth community, with a medium priority growth area in its' southern region (KGMP 2019-21), including a 12 hectare subdivision development requiring park land (6). Conclusion The community is serviced for park and recreation below the city-wide average and poor distribution to the southern residential neighbourhoods (7). The timing of the major development application and review align with the community's relatively low critical needs assessment. Park acquisition should be focused on maximizing local park development within the medium -priority growth area of the community (6), and opportunity -based acquisition within the southern residential neighbourhood through re- development applications. u 106 Appendix Page 142 SPIFFY No. Sq.m. 6 463,362 Planned Parks Passive1 5,929 Neighbourhood2 13,537 Community 1 City 1 Legacy 1 1 X City of Kitchener 1j) -f Critical Needs Areas Cedar Hill QD Summary Cedar Hill is one of the smaller communities in the city, both geographically and by population, and contains 2 local parks - Sandhills (1) and Kaufman (2) parks. The result is a Local park provision that is significantly greater than the city-wide average. Its unique boundaries and small area also indicate the park influence will reach beyond the community itself, particularly in bordering communities of Mill -Courtland (3) and King East (4). Kaufman Park is a unique property itself due to its shared use with Cameron Heights Collegiate and indistinct boundaries between the two uses. The size and wider influence of Kaufman Park will be explored in a special case to examine its characteristics in depth and impact on bordering communities. In its current state, Kaufman Park is disconnected from the greater community through physical barriers (Stirling Ave. retaining wall frontage), and influence of use from Cameron Heights Collegiate students. %X Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Kaufman Park will be the focus for further analysis and recommendations beyond the Cedar Hill Community influence. 108 Page 144 Sfft7 1 ., 34.1 sq.m./person 0 $40,321 i 85% Planned Parks Passive No. I 0 1 0 0 0 1 X City of Kitchener @d145 OfWSr Critical Needs Areas Summary Central Frederick local park system is anchored by Weber Park (1), a community park accounting for 2 of the communities 2.2 hectares of local park space. The remaining park area is contained in Gordon Green (2) and Brubacher Park (3), both micro parks. All 3 local parks contain recreational amenities and are distributed well within the community. The St. Annes Catholic School campus (4) provides additional public recreational support for the south-east neighbourhood. In order to achieve the ceiling provision (8.5 sq.m.), an additional hectare of land is required to be developed into local park space, approximately half of the size of Weber Park. To reach the current average (10.1 sq.m.) approximately 1.5 hectares is needed. Both values assume no additional population growth. Conclusion (0 The community is well below the city-wide average local park service delivery. All development within the community is recommended to pursue land where appropriate using the acquisition tool within this report. Passive opportunities through development should focus on parkette sized areas to support Gordon and Brubacher R Q[ Parks, with targeted acquisitions in the south-east neighbourhoods (5). 110 Appendix Page 146 of 317 0 -3,797 21,903sq.m. 5.8sq.m./person No. Sq.m. 0 1 Neighbourhood Community City 1 Legacy 1 School Grounds Other Open Space 1� 1,471 20,432 99. 6 °�s WEBER m� PARK 1 ❑ ��cuPst a°c CEQ 'fie 6� I I ❑ p�E HpNH� /L sr E°PPE 5` mm 0 City of Kitchener v @d147 OAT Critical Needs Areas Centerville Chicopee QD Summary Centerville Chicopee is defined by its central open space - Chicopee Ski Hill (1), a 52+ hectare semi-public recreational site. The ski hill is not considered a public park but does support the open space system by allowing passive access. Contributing to the local park system are 5 neighbourhood parks well distributed throughout the community (2), the largest of which is Morrison Park (3), anchoring the eastern neighbourhood nearest the Grand River. The community also boasts significant passive open space and established trail networks in the Walter Bean Grand River Trail (4), and southern section of the Dom Cardillo Trail (5). It is expected that by 2025 Hofstetter Park (2*) will be reduced by approximately 16,000 sq.m. as a result of the River Road extension and Highway 7/8 on-ramp construction. This will reduce the local park provision to 7.6 sq.m. per person. Exact timing of the construction has been subject to change through the Region of Waterloo annual budget review process Conclusion Due to the long term partial loss of Hofstetter Park, an acquisition strategy to acquire a local park at a minimum 20,000 sq.m. size is recommended. Increasing the size of Kinzie Park (2) through the redevelopment of the former school grounds, and ensuring safe access across River Rd. (5), can form part of the acquisition strategy. Improvements to park infrastructure should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives, with focus on the remaining park components of Hofstetter Park following River Road construction. 112 Appendix Page 148 SM'" 1 6, , .1 sq.m./person d $71,659 ® 31 Natural Areas Neighbourh71, CommunityCityLegacy 1 * +1 vacant former school +1 vacant school property 1 City of Kitchener@d1I49 0 f13113r Critical Needs Areas Cherry Hill Summary Cherry Hill contains 2 local parks - Raddatz Park (1) and Cherry Park (2). Cherry Park is defined as a community level service park. Both parks combined exceed the city-wide average for local park provision. The local parks are further supported by the central and northern sections of the Iron Horse Trail (3), and Henry Sturm greenway (4) passive trail networks. Distribution of the local parks is focused to the north of the community, separated from the southern neighbourhoods by Victoria St. Poor distribution is offset by the use of park spaces outside of the community boundary including Victoria Park (5) and Belmont Park (6). Cherry Hill shares its northern boundary with KW Hospital (7), a community that is deemed a Critical needs community for park land. It is recognized that park spaces in Cherry Hill support neighoubrhoods within the KW Hospital community, and will reflect in its improvement priority Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 114 Appendix Page 150 5Pft7 1 13,118 15.3sq.m./person 0 $53,373 No. Sq.m. 3 72,823 Planned Parks I,►y« 1 30,150 Neighbourhood 1 17,311 Community1 30,324 1 X City of Kitchener Critical Needs Areas City Comm. Core Summary Parks within the Commercial Core of the city are confined to micro, urban parks between 200 and 1,000 sq.m. each. The exception is Civic Centre Park (1) at 7,500 sq.m., which due to mapping boundaries is not included in the Civic Centre community. There are 9 local parks within the Commercial Core community, distributed well through the King St. east -west corridor. The community is highly influenced by the connection to Victoria Park (2). The community is well below the city-wide average for local park provision Conclusion Due to its' proximity and connection to the Downtown Core, a further park acquisition study is recommended to consider Civic Centre and Downtown Core together. Metrics for both communities yield similar high priority infrastructure improvements and critical needs acquisition based on their park supply and equity measures. Park space in a densely urban community must be approached with more detail than this format can provide. A closer look at Downtown Kitchener park targets and acquisitions will be addressed separately in Places and future acquisition strategies. u 116 Appendix Page 152 SPft7 1 12,685 4.7sq.m./person 0 $50,968 i 93% Natural Areas 1 Neighbourh71, CommunityCityLegacy 0* School properties do not feature recreational open space 0 City of Kitchener i @d1'53 OAT Critical Needs Areas Civic Centre Summary Civic Centre is a relatively small community (2,150 residents), containing one Neighbourhood level park - Hibner Park (1). Due to Planning Community boundaries, Civic Centre Park (2) is not included within the Civic Centre community. Conclusion Due to its' proximity and connection to the Downtown Core, a further park acquisition study is recommended to consider Civic Centre and Downtown Core together. Metrics for both communities yield similar high priority infrastructure improvements and critical needs acquisition based on their park supply and equity measures. Park space in a densely urban community must be approached with more detail than this format can provide. A closer look at Civic Centre park targets and acquisitions will be addressed separately in Places and future acquisition strategies. u 118 Appendix Page 154 SPft7 f 0 aL Ni Planned Parks City of Kitchener Critical Needs Areas Country Hills Summary The Country Hills community contains two local parks, Cedar Hill (1) and Country Hills (2). Country Hills Park has been reclassified as a Neighbourhood Park through this evaluation. Planned parkland is within the desired quantity range, however poorly distributed. Parkland is predominantly located within the centre of the community, offering a variety of recreation facilities and trail connections. The parks are further supported with complementary outdoor amenities at Country Hills Public School (3), with the school yard having direct connection to Balzer Greenway (4) and Country Hills Park. In addition, the community is well connected to natural areas, and Steckle Woods (5), located across Bleams Road in Trillium Industrial Park. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 120 Appendix Page 156 of 317 e i cG El 9 4,811 HERR aq ................................. 49,490r.q... El • LL BHN ' 9 9� Rf 0 • • • / aC_ NTAY HILL DR I LI �� y No. Sq.m. ERS Natural Areas 1 25,391 4�",o Planned Parks OLD O q- OtD GOHNiRV'OR Passive 1 24,267 El Neighbourhood 2 49,490 SANDSPRIN Community 0 DEVONGLEN DR 0 0 aR SOUTHWOOO School 0 Other Open Space0 City of Kitchener I PARK 9r �Ey Oq F pR MROSE2P "@457021t Critical Needs Areas Country Hills East Summary Country Hills East contains one local park - Fallowfield Park (1), surrounded by over 14 hectares of natural area. The community is connected to the east and west boundaries by Balzer Creek and Balzer Creek Trail (2). There are supporting recreational amenities within St. Mary's High School / Community library campus (3), but are inaccessible for the majority of the residential neighoubrhoods within the community. Activa Sportsplex (4) is also within the community but is a stand-alone indoor recreational facility without outdoor amenities. The park provision is lower than the city-wide average and distribution is poor by virtue of having only one park, and the separation of the school grounds from the residential neighbourhood. Conclusion The topography of the neighbourhoods and Fallowfield Park itself do not indicate expansion potential, but rather a focus on quality improvements within the park. As infill residential development continues in the southern portion of the community (5), it is critical to pursue park land. u 122 Appendix Page 158 of 317 No. 3 Planned Parks Passive Neighbourhood Community 1 City 1 Legacy 1 1 117, City of Kitchener @d1'59 ofl213r Critical Needs Areas Country Hills West Summary Country Hills West is well serviced for Local parks in both quantity and variety, with 3 neighbourhood parks between 2 and 5 hectares each - Rittenhouhse (1), Erinbrook (2) and Countryside Parks (3). The parks are well connected via Erinbrook and Rittenhouse Greenways (4), and further supported by higher level recreational infrastructure at Lions Park (5) classified as a City park with its high intensity sportsfields, arena and community centre. Elementary school campuses (6) are well integrated with the park system with complementary � outdoor amenities. Mff R' Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. 0 Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives (e.g. sportsfield improvements or community centre programming). 124 Appendix Page 160 5Pft7 No. Sq.m. I Neighbourhood Community 1 city Legacy 1 3 X City of Kitchener @d17S1 Ofl215r Critical Needs Areas Doon South Summary Doon South contains well over 100 hectares of natural lands, by far the most in any community. The community does include 10 Local parks, but at only at 4.4 hectares total, the largest of which is 11,500 square meters (Windrush Park (1)) followed by Wetland Way Park (2) at 7,000 sq.m.. The result is a fractured, disconnected series of small to parkette sized properties unable to house amenities beyond basic playground and passive elements. These small or parkette sized Local parks are well dsitributed throughout the community, however have resulted in one of the City's largest communities without sportsfields, courts, splashpads, dog parks, or any recreational amenity beyond playgrounds. The community centre itself is located in the neighbouring Pioneer Park community (Doon- Pioneer Park CC). Conclusion To address the deficiency in parkland within Doon South further acquisition study of undeveloped properties not less than 2.0 hectare in size is recommended. The new park space should be of sufficient size, condition and topography to allow for Community Park level amenities to support the many passive and playground features within the Community. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 126 Appendix Page 162 SPIFFY 1 1110,862 4.1 sq.m./person 0 $138, 542 Planned Parks No. Sq.m. 19 1,192,744' 14 101,339 10 44,838 0 city1 Legacy 1 4 X City of Kitchener OiISi3 Of'1217 Critical Needs Areas Summary Eastwood contains three local parks, with Montgomery Park (1) being the largest at 4.1 hectares, offering a mix of recreational and sport facilities. The remaining two parks are very small in scale, ranging from 0.02 — 1.5 hectares. Both Edmund Green (2) and Shupe Green (3) have been reclassified as Neighbourhood Parks through this evaluation. The community is bound by Highway 7, running along the eastern and southern boundary. Planned parkland is within the desired quantity range, but is poorly distributed, favouring the southern section. The Auditorium (4) is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the community fabric, providing additional outdoor amenities. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. Investments into the existing passive green space (Randerson Green, 5) would improve the distribution of Local park amenities within the community. u 128 Appendix Page 164 SPFff No. Sq.m. 0 Planned Parks 1 1,589 3 42,907 0 0 0* Portion of Rockway Gardens 1 0 City of Kitchener j M- oN p�E PNEo- Critical Needs Areas Fairfield Summary Fairfield is home to Breithaupt Park, which is classified as three separate parks - a City Park (1), Natural Area (2) and Neighbourhood Park (3). Breithaupt Park as a whole is a sprawling green space that provides a wide variety of recreational amenities within all 3 class of park space. Beyond the borders of Breithaupt are 2 local parks - Hart Green (4) and Arnold Park (5), both parkette sized neigbourhood parks. The parks are further supported by Prueter Public School campus (6) Conclusion Breithaupt Park (City) is a highly programmed active City park driven by the Community Centre, pool and sportsfields There are components within the park that support community use, including a playground, open green space and picnic shelter. Recognizing these supportive community amenities within the city facility, and the off -hour use of uncontrolled sportsfields, the Breithaupt community should pursue park acquisitions and increase Local park provision with a low priority. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 130 Appendix Page 166 SM'" 0 oowNE,=r = o 3,354 --------------------------------F�o�� 18,918sq.m. HONs` 5.6sq.m./personzo - 0 J O £ P� No. Sq.m. off o.- :, AI( IR) E,ERA E pA Natural Areas 2 195,818 15E&WOOD AVE o�E' P m LEONARD ST Planned Parks r" pE Passive O FlE O Neighbourhood 3 18,918 60 P Community 0 goo 9 F 1 85,037 0 pE f R School2 Other Open Space0 City of Kitchener @M157 0 fM V Critical Needs Areas Summary Forest Heights is the second most populous community in the city (15,548 total residents) and is serviced well above average within its boundaries. The community contains 11 local parks (9 Neighbourhood, 2 Community) between 1 and 3 hectares each. Fischer (1), Driftwood (2) and Forest Heights CC Parks (3), are the largest and most prominent planned open spaces. The parks are well connected through Hydro Corridor trail networks (4) and Sandrock Greenway (5). Elementary and Secondary school campuses integrate well with the open space network to complement park infrastructure needs. It is recognized that Meadowlane Park (6) will lose approximately 20,000 sq.m. of recreational space by 2026 due to the construction of stormwater infrastructure (wet pond), recommended by Kitchener's Stormwater Master Plan. The park has been pro -actively excluded from this analysis. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. The loss of Meadowlane Park as a park space should be paired with targeted improvement efforts within the local park cluster to compensate its' expected loss. 132 Appendix Page 168 SPft7 Planned Parks I,►y« bl ST TSS �,os C®MMUNITY `Pp ° CEN�T,RE,FISCHER P �QQEtcRES J ARI® PARK TRAILVIEW'FIRE D G Vii. y0� Obpp `PSP PARK HALLopR'`�R' oG0.FS CN/S NEWeURY p0. @ �J ` �y'J NF PSQEH EGA 4(?U .It0. ESR/D GE RJ pJW� NP0.� C °`EOP ',Wy( S�0 p0.S OF'Oyn c� / z a °pO�PGP0.0.�O SOY _ O� '�EEcm� c WESTHEIGHTS E"% y "� Np oQ No. Sq.m. cp"P°R �F400WSpTIM ®ER�LANEg4"° PARI( MESlegs� EOGp ES SLP o 5 119,131, BFNt HIGHVIEW DRI _ NF ° % ��pF$ow� yb CEDAR Q CREST JDRIF�TWOOU o+�_ 7 260,362 °pRE ,_ PARK BIR�PAR� YELLOyy �� �> 10 126,206 ,'9NELLEN ORff OR EEL STONEHft O 2 53,561 0 0 City of Kitchener @cI1i59 Ofla3r Critical Needs Areas Summary QD Forest Hill is well serviced within its boundaries, containing five local parks, Cloverdale (1), Forest Hill (2), Overlea (3), Queensmount (4), and Southridge (5). Queensmount Park has been reclassified as a Neighbourhood Park through this evaluation. Parks range from 0.65 to 2.45 hectares each. Parkland is well distributed throughout the community, offering a variety of recreation and sport facilities. The parks are further supported with complementary outdoor amenities at 4 schools within the community, all of which are directly connected to a Neighbourhood park. Gaps in the walkshed analysis can be offset by the supporting school grounds and access to the parks through these open spaces. Conclusion (a The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Maintain park acquisitions through growth. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. 134 Appendix Page 170 of 317 1 15,961 80,851 13.6sq.m./person d $76,294 ® 22% No. sq.m. 0 Passive 1 Neighbourhood Community 1 City 1 Legacy 1 4 0 80,8! City of Kitchener @d1'91 OfMSr Critical Needs Areas Grand diver North Summary Grand River North contains vast naturalized areas in Kolb Valley (1), including a critical portion of the Walter Bean Grand River Trail. There is only one neighbourhood park, Westchester Park (2), supported by the City park Rosenberg (3) at the boundaries southern tip. The community contains a high priority growth development (4), which is planned to contain three local parks at 7,500 sq.m. combined, and up to 1,832 residents (-4.1 sq.m. per person), slightly increasing the community provision once built and occupied. Conclusion The application of 5% land vs. the alternative rate in subdivision development will limit future park growth as stated above. Although Rosenberg Park offers some neighbourhood level recreational opportunities, its' location is isolated from the majority of residential neighbourhoods. To address the parkland deficiency the following actions should be considered: • Short term (5) - create micro park setting on existing City property adjacent to 500 Otterbein Rd. The area is approximately 800 sq.m.; • Medium term (6) - monitor north-western neighbourhood and commercial properties for purchase & redevelopment opportunities; and • Long term (7) - monitor long term development of aggregate production and processing properties. edium u 136 Appendix Page 172 SPFff 0 4,805 ❑ 13,006sq.m. GENE 1�I L Om 5 NpSE ��1. P PJE °R Fi No. Sq.m. Natural Areas 4 284,236 A O KE • °GgRRyPPyO O C Planned Parks s NpGONS` ° FBFry9 • 1 7,869 ❑ o ° a 1 P e�Q Neighbourhood 1 13,006 d _ ESTCH� TER Z m 'SPARK `°t Community cP� 3 ^ t°i SSV 1 48,892 m� 9L� 0 School0 9F e p FL; SpaceOther Open 0 \ City of Kitchener OPF3 ofla7 Critical Needs Areas Grand River South Summary Grand River South contains 7 local parks distributed well throughout the community, Eden Oak Park (1) being the largest and most recent development (2019). The community is also home to vast natural areas in Natchez (2), Lackner (3), Grand River (4) and Idlewood Creek (5)natural areas, totaling almost 100 hectares of protected lands. The community is undergoing residential growth with various residential neighbourhoods and park spaces coming into the public realm at the time of writing this report. It is estimated a further 570 residents will be added to the current population and 3 additional neighbourhood parks to be constructed at a total of 8,100 sq.m. meters. This new development will increase the communities local park provision to 8.2 sq.m. per person Conclusion Grand River South is below the city-wide average of local park service delivery, however is supported by diverse passive recreational opportunities provided by the Grand River through canoe launches (6) and the Walter Bean Grand River Trail. To address the deficiency in local park provision, a passive approach is recommended as development opportunities occur. u 138 Appendix Page 174 Sff'" No. Sq.m. 5 773,3 Planned Parks W kyl- 1 2,65 7 74,94 111 cityI Legacy A$ 3 City of Kitchener "OPF5 OfMr Critical Needs Areas Summary QD Heritage Park contains three local parks, ranging in size from 1.67 — 2.7 hectares. Heritage Park (1) being the largest. Each park offers a mix of recreational and/or sport facilities and are well distributed throughout the community. Local park provision is slightly under the city-wide average at 8.7 sq. m per person. The parks are further supported with complementary outdoor amenities at four local schools, with Heritage Park and Crosby Park (2) connecting directly to a school yard. In addition, the community is well connected to natural areas of Stanley Park Conservation area to the west (3), and multiple connections to neighbouring parks. Conclusion (a The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Partnerships with the local school grounds is recommended to support local park provisions. • Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. 140 Appendix Page 176 of 317 No. Sq.m. Natural Areas 0 Planned Parks IN kyl- City of Kitchener 0 3 0 0 0 5 X 62,524 "OPF OAT Critical Needs Areas Hide'd-en v. �i . QD Summary Hidden Valley is the smallest residential community in the city at 600 population, containing one local park, Hidden Valley Crescent Park (1). The majority of the communities space is vacant/agricultural lands subject to a completion of a Secondary Plan, Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statements. The land is targeted as a low priority development with up to 40 residents projected through the Kitchener Growth Management Plan. Conclusion The community is uniquely isolated from all other planning community recreational services, bounded by the Grand River and Highway 8 to the south, east and north. It is also the city's highest median income ($228,000) and lowest percentage of apartments (4%). 0 To address the deficient local park service provision, future secondary planning of Hidden Valley (2) should include a local planned park at a minimum size of 5,000 sq.m., with larger sizes considered for a greater community use. The low priority of park acquisition aligns with the development priority of the KGMP. 142 Appendix Page 178 SPf'" No. Sq.m. 3 110,591 Planned Parks k JA 0 1 1,553 0 0 0 I City of Kitchener Critical Needs Areas Highland West Summary Highland West contains 26 total park spaces at 44.7 hectares total. Of those parks, 9 are planned parks at 15.6 hectares. The community is well serviced within its boundaries. This community is bounded on two sides, Ira Needles Blvd. to the west, separating residential and commercial zones, and a rail corridor to the north. Parkland is well distributed throughout the community offering a variety of recreation facilities. Multiple trail systems enhance the community's connectivity to its planned parks and surrounding communities, including trail connections to Monarch Woods Natural Area (1). Elementary and Secondary school campuses integrate well with the open space network to complement park infrastructure needs. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 144 Appendix Page 180 of 317 Planned Parks No. Sc 7 3 1 9 1 0 0 0 3 0 City of Kitchener @d1;81 0".5 Critical Needs Areas H u � �; I' -1;p �� I, %--- Summary Huron South is a growing community containing four existing local parks - Parkvale (1), Sophia, Banffshire and Rochefort (2) Parks. Over 85% of the total park area is within Parkvale Park (35,000 sq.m.), which is supported well by a surrounding natural area, stormwater pond and school campus to maximize its recreational use. The area is further supported by passive Hydro Corridor trails (3) and the southern part of Huron Natural Area (4), one of the city's 5 Legacy parks. Within the planned growth of Huron South are 7 local parks at a total of 35,700 sq.m. (6), coinciding with the introduction of approximately 2,750 residents, increasing the community provision to 9.2 sq.m. per person. The southern community will have direct access to the recreational amenities within RBJ Schlegel Park (5) at full build out of both the park and Fischer Hallman Road in 2025 to further support local park provisions. Conclusion Future growth of Huron South is limited to the southern half of the community and largely planned and in development at the time of this update. As a new community, with its primary park space (Parkvale) built within the past 10 years, the park system is considered complete to modern standards, and its future park provision of 9.2 sq.m. per person a reflection of both the primary tool to develop parkland (5% through subdivision) and greater persons per household (3.1). u 146 ,Appendix Page 182 of 317 No. Sq.m. 1 40,574 ID INOOW'�N MArt1AN�st 3 IIA sRK ° _ ROCHE vZ v N ROGNEFO0.( 1 N 0 0 Planned Parks W\ll\AM �UN�OF St 9(1 py � ���►E« 4 29,521 SONEN1llpNE 1101.0E 4 41,743 Community 0 0 © IO NN WpI�P WN�i U`NE 4 1 * 1 055 529 Entire Huron Natural Area GEg0. 1St property included School Grounds1 * Excludes vacant school grounds ' g0.ppDPO0.E D0. yet to be constructed L O�EOPF O yS S L t�F 001, 'STONESI pP �O Z .� po OA4rySN WSI $ ° �Q N~ z "FSR BANFFSHIRE 0.O°0.OUFFEp0. NEWGPS� `0.ENE�'W 5( OP z (PS( E9P µOODEDG% City of Kitchener @d1;83 oflM Critical Needs Areas Summary QD The Idlewood community contains four local parks (4 Neighbourhood, 0 Community) and three natural areas. Idlewood Greenway (1) and Springmount Park (2) have been reclassified as Neighbourhood Parks through this evaluation. Idlewood Greenway and Eby Park (3) are the largest and most prominent planned open spaces at 2.4 - 2.6 hectares. The parks are well connected through Springmount Park, and trail networks by means of Idlewood Greenway and Idlewood Creek (4). Neighbouring parkland integrates well with the open space network to complement park infrastructure needs. Local park land is above the city wide average, however poorly distributed with a gap of park service in the southern residential neighbourhoods (5). There are no school grounds or other open space that can support recreational amenities for these neighbourhoods. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions, however due to the gap in service in the southern portion of the community a passive approach is warranted should opportunities present. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. 148 Appendix Page 184 of 317 1 115,599 6,86 11.9sq.m./person � $116,424 Planned Parks Passive City of Kitchener No. Sq.m. 3 290,Of 1 4 0 0 0 x X 4,7E 66,8E Critical Needs Areas IIII rr L III, Summary King East contains three neighoburhood parks - Luther, Stabler and Madison Greens (1), all between 200 and 700 sq.m. each. The only open space to support these micro urban parks are two cemeteries - one under public operation St Peters Lutheran (2) and one privately operated First Mennonite Church (3). Local park access for residents of King East is reliant on Knollwood Park (4) of the Auditorium, and Kaufman Park (5), of Cedar Hill. Conclusion As a community within an MTSA, a detailed park acquisition strategy is recommended following this report to properly plan for and accommodate rapid residential growth. With highly dense developments anticipated, it is unlikely passive parkland acquisition through development processes will yield park space greater than micro size, urban park -like areas. These parks are already present within the community and their size contributes to lack of park services. A targeted approach for meaningful space for neighbourhood and community programming is recommended to be at least 10,000 sq.m., under the guidance of the MTSA objective park provision. Improvements to Kaufman Park outside of the King East boundaries may improve variety of park space available to residents of King East, however its influence is limited by the barriers to access presented by King St. E. and Charles St. E. Acquisition for park land use should be considered the primary means of addressing the deficiencies of King East. u 150 Appendix Page 186 of 317 1 112,085 0.6sq.m./person 0 $52,767 ® 57% Planned Parks N - 0 0 3 0 0 0 IC X City of Kitchener @di;87 OOTAT Critical Needs Areas KW Hospital Summary KW Hospital contains one local park on its Western border - Gildner Green (1), located along the Iron Horse Trail corridor (2). There are no other planned parks servicing the bulk of the residential community north and east of Grand River Hospital. Open spaces exist in the form of Mount Hope Cemetery (3), and two satellite School campuses (4). Don McLaren Arena (5) is an isolated indoor recreational facility that is not associated with additional park or open space. KW Hospital community parks & open spaces were subject to review in the PARTS Midtown Plan (2017). The Plan assessed all open space, inclusive of School Board properties and Cemeteries. The conclusion of the report yielded adequate parkland (28.4 sq.m. per person) following substantial population growth. Conclusion Applying updated classifications and understanding of park definitions, KW Hospital is currently deficient and will continue to be if no parkland is acquired through its projected growth. As a community containing the northern part of the Urban Growth Centre, a detailed park acquisition strategy is recommended following this report. As development continues to occur, it is recommended to pursue land where appropriate using the acquisition tool within this report. u 152 Appendix Page 188 of 317 1 112,916 .. 1.5sq.m./person 0 $58,817 ® 67% No. sq.r L Passive 1 Neighbourhood Community 1 City 1 Legacy 1 2* 2 school's operate 2 separate properties as their grounds 0 City of Kitchener @c1j;89 OfM3r Critical Needs Areas Laurentian HiV Summary McLennan Park (1) is the dominant open space in Laurentian Hills, a 37 hectare former landfill site well connected in the community through Laurentian Trail (2). McLennan is one of the City's 5 legacy parks featuring highly active programming as well as its most unique features of a 100 meter tobogganing hill and downhill mountain bike trail. Locally Laurentian Hills is well serviced within its boundaries, containing fifteen parks total (6 Neighbourhood, 1 Community). Local Parks range in size from 0.5 to 2.49 hectares each. Laurentian Park (3) is the largest at 2.7 hectares however ownership is with the School Board. Parkland is well distributed throughout the community, offering a variety of recreation facilities and passive open space. The parks are well connected through trail and hydro corridor networks including Laurentian Trail and Borden Creek Greenway (4). The central neighbourhoods of Laurentian Hills (5) lack direct access to Local parks, however this is offset by McLennan Park and further supported by three school grounds within the neighbourhood Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 154 Appendix Page 190 SPFff No. Neighbourhood Community City 1 Legacy pn City of Kitchener ' @d1 )1 OflfASr Critical Needs Areas Laurentian West Summary Laurentian West is the city's most populous communities at over 17,000 residents, with an additional 2,100 estimated in future development at Trussler Road (1). The community has vast naturalized areas in Borden (2) and Laurentian Wetlands (3), and Hydro Corridor trails (4) accounting for over 50 hectares of land. The local parks include 5 neighbourhood parks, the largest of which is Voisin Park (5) at 47,000 sq.m. The remaining parks are Commonwealth, Fox Glove, Max Becker and Michael Donnenworth Parks (6). Future development of Ottawa/Trussler includes four additional park spaces at approximately 24,000 sq.m. in size, raising the local park provision to 6.4 sq.m. per person Conclusion Large scale development will include local park development, therefore an acquisition study should focus in areas of existing development to improve distribution of local park service. Those areas are the residential neighourhoods to the north-east corner (7) and southern border along Bleams Rd. (8). As a relatively new community, re -development opportunities will be limited. An active strategy is necessary to address the park land deficiency in Laurentian West u 156 Appendix Page 192 SPft7 0 17,508 •------------------------------- 101,913sq.m. 5.8sq.m./person 0 Natural Areas4 388,651 Planned Parks • • Neighbourhood5 101,913 Community 1 City 1 Legacy 1 c ;OWER C� Z --, O DR PC�FS❑ O�P�P`'S ORGEl Y, 3 V\PKERO � OR SCR £�RNf GR WglERCFb AOR IlD I� G I 2 'BUSH CIOV� 1 MICHAEL- DONNENWOR Wim= ARK N \SP\P EU1P PV - WPR4 Si �,�CECR�' DUBR CRES �,o SINREAiA ft - St 00 Oq MAX eECKER OR VmRRO hh v 2WE City of Kitchener "ON3 OfM Critical Needs Areas Lower Doon Summary Lower Doon most notably is home to one of two city golf courses - Doon Valley (1). The course is not considered park space, but does support the access of the Walter Bean Grand River Trail and pedestrian bridge crossing the Grand River (2). The community has three planned parks, ranging from 0.06 - 1.4 hectares. Durham Green (3) and Orchard Mill Green (4) have been reclassified as Neighbourhood Parks through this evaluation. The community is bound by the Grand River to the North, an 18 -hole golf course in the South -East, and Conestoga College campus to the South-West. Highway 401 further restricts this community's connectivity. Willowlake Park (5) provides recreation and play facilities for the community. Lower Doon has three natural areas, with Willowlake Park Greenway (6) being reclassified through this evaluation. Multiple trail systems enhance the community's connectivity to its planned parks and surrounding communities. The Conestoga College campus integrates well with the open space network to complement park infrastructure needs (7). Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 158 Appendix Page 194 of 317 f 0 aL Planned Parks IN kyl- No. Sq.i 3 71 0 3 0 0 0 x City of Kitchener "ON5 OfM9r Critical Needs Areas s �v� Summary Meinzinger Park is serviced well above average at 56.2 sq. m of parkland per person within its boundaries. The community contains 7 total parks, 3 of which within the Planned category. Meinzinger Park (1) is the largest planned open space at 12 hectares, with Lakeside Park (2) at 6 hectares. The parks are well connected through trail networks and Concordia Park Greenway (3). The parks provide both passive and active recreation opportunities to the community, however all parks are located along the south-east boundary, making the park system unbalanced in distribution. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 160 Appendix Page 196 SPft7 1 2,562 . . 5 6.2sq.m./person d $71,235 Natural Areas Neighbourhood Community 1 City 1 Legacy 1 1 2 City of Kitchener � — ON7 0039T Critical Needs Areas Mill Courtland Summary Mill -Courtland community contains four local park spaces in Highland Courts Park (1), Mill St. Parkette (2), Stirling Green (3) and Woodside Green (4). Highland Courts Parks is the vast majority of the overall local park space, with the two remaining parks combining for 1,000 sq.m. The community features the southern link of the Iron Horse Trail (5) and Schneider Creek Greenway connecting the community from Rockway Golf Course (6) to Victoria Park (7). Woodside Park (8) is a controlled sportsfield only available through sportsfield bookings, and does not contribute to the local park provision. Significant growth is planned within the former Schneider's industrial property at 325 Courtland Ave. (9). The residential/mixed use subdivision stands to introduce approximately 4,900 residents. The development is proposing a public park block 5,600 sq.m. in size. The full build out of the former Schneider's lands will reduce the communities park provision to 3.6 sq.m. per person The growth compounds and existing gap in park service south-east of Ottawa St., bordering Rockway Golf Course. Conclusion Due to the infill of 325 Courtland Ave., Mill Courtland is considered a high priority for park acquisition efforts. A strategy is recommended to be paired with King East (10) community. Kaufman Park (11) utilization and infrastructure improvements appears to be a mutual interest of both deficient communities, as well as the future planning of the Schneider Creek greenway (12). u 162 Appendix Page 198 SPFff ................................. 0 0 :4,428 28,312sq.m. 1�1 6.4sq.m./person � • • • , O® • • GREEN H C No. Sq.m. P Natural Areas 1 410 Planned Parks 8 134,872 Neighbourhood 5 28,312 Community 0 1 27,308 0 School1 • •.- 0 City of Kitchener B �P BEd 0 2J` 0 ACACIA S} TTE _ 0 gdNq oflW Critical Needs Areas Mount Hope Huron Park Summary Mount Hope Huron Park contains eight local parks with Lips Park (1) being the largest at 1.3 hectares. Hillside Park (2) is 1.1 hectares, offering both active and passive play opportunities. Maple Lane Green (3) has been reclassified as a Neighbourhood Park through this evaluation. George Lippert Park (4) is the centre of park space within the community both in location and park features, and connects well with the community alongside the Spur Line Trail (5) Planned parkland is approximately the city average provision for Local parks, and distributed well throughout the community with adequate access to all parks. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 164 Appendix Page 200 SPFff Planned Parks No. 0 0 8 0 0 0 City of Kitchener Critical Needs Areas Northward Summary The Northward community contains two local parks, Ash Park (1) and Guelph Street Park (2), as well as one natural area Springwood Park (3). The community also contains Woodside National Historic (4) site as additional open space that is not held and operated by the City. Local park provsion is well above the city-wide average at 14.9 sq.m. per person, and distributed well through the residential neighbourhoods. The community is bound by Highway 8 to the north-east and railway corridor to the south. Parkland is predominantly located in the south-west area of the community, offering a variety of recreation facilities and open space. Guelph Street Park offers multiple access points to the community. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 166 Appendix Page 202 bPft7 No. Sq.m. 1 79,499 Neighbourhood Community I City I Legacy 10 i 15,258 City of Kitchener uoov— "@ck3 OfWT Critical Needs Areas Pioneer Park Summary Pioneer Park is serviced well above average at 23.9 sq. m of parkland per person within its boundaries. The community contains 24 total parks, with 10 being planned. Upper Canada Park (1) is the largest local park at 8.7 hectares and has been reclassified as a Community Park through this evaluation. Further intensification of the sportsfield components will warrant a second classification of the Park to City, maintaining a portion for community use. The fields and supporting features account for approximately 4.7 hectares of the Community park, and if re-classified would reduce the true Local park provision of 21.2 sq.m., still well above the city average. The parks are well connected through trail networks and open space parks including Carlyle Park (2) Wheatfield Park Greenway (3), Pioneer Park (4), and Millwood Park (5). The parks provide a variety of recreational facilities and natural features and supported by the Trans -Canada trail network (6) through Homer Watson Park (7), a vast natural area held by the Region of Waterloo and Grand River Conservation Authority. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 168 Appendix Page 204 of 317 1 118,889 2 6.2sq.m./person 0 $75,872 ® 28% Planned Parks City of Kitchener No. Sq 4 693,281 1 1 5,982 9 152,096 1 81,121 3 4 L PcM5 AW Critical Needs Areas Pioneer Tower West Summary Pioneer Tower West has 19 parks total, ranging from 0.07 - 28 hectares. Kuntz Park (1) is the largest planned park at 2.2 hectares providing both active and passive play. Joseph Schoerg Park (2) has been reclassified as a Passive Park through this evaluation. The community is bound by the Grand River on three sides and is home to two golf courses, both privately owned and managed (3). Highway 8 and Highway 401 further restricts this community's connectivity. Multiple trail systems enhance the community's connectivity to its planned parks and surrounding community, including the Walter Bean Grand River Trail (4) bounding Deer Ridge golf course along the Grand River. The community is well above average for park supply, including significant natural areas along its southern border and within the Grand River flood plain. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 170 Appendix Page 206 of 317 Planned Parks No. Sq 6 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 City of Kitchener @I )7 0 fRT Critical Needs Areas Summary I/I Rockway is a community dominated by vast green space of both Rockway Golf Course (1) and Rockway Gardens (2), but only one local park — Dixon Green (3). Dixon Green itself is an irregularly shaped property with limited access and no active recreational infrastructure. The community has distinct barriers to utilizing other community park space with Courtland, Highway 7/8 and King St. E. bounding its west, south and eastern limits. There are no supporting park spaces beyond the northern boundary. Rockway can be described as having no recreational services beyond the passive use of Rockway Gardens and passive support of Rockway Golf course. Conclusion A local park acquisition strategy is required and targeted for at least 7,000 sq.m. of public park space, based on the population at the time of this report. In addition to the expansion of public park space, available parkland at Dixon should be considered for infrastructure improvements as the only local park space within the community. If portions of Rockway Golf Course are targeted for local park use, those spaces must be directly accessible to the residential neighbourhood directly west of the public golf course. u 172 Appendix Page 208 SPft7 1 111,255 .: 4.5sq.m./person 0 $72,262 ® 39% Planned Parks No. Sq.r 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 City of Kitchener @I)q 00" Critical Needs Areas Rosemount Summary Rosemount community contains one of the largest natural areas in the city in Stanley Park Conservation Area (1) at over 61 hectares in size. There are only 2 local parks in the community— Forfar (2) and Shantz (3) parks. In addition to the two local parks, there are three future infill parks planned or with potential to become local parks: • Rose Park (4) — a 1,500 sq.m. neighbourhood park coinciding with approximately 230 new residents in the former school campus. • River Road and Frederick St. (5) - oversized right-of-way with potential to yield up to 1,200 sq.m. of local park space and no additional residents. • Rosemount Park (6) — currently a 3,400 sq.m. passive park with potential for community use through re- investment. The community is bounded on its three sides by Highway 7/85 to the west, Stanley Park Natural Area to the East, and Victoria St. to the north. All parks outside of the community boundary are considered inaccessible. Conclusion Accounting for future parks and infill development, the local park provision is increased but still well below the city average at 3.4 sq.m. per person. With clear barriers on all sides of the community, a targeted acquisition strategy to account for all local park needs within Rosemount is required. Development opportunities may be limited to partnerships with school grounds, specifically Smithson Public School (7). u 174 Appendix Page 210 Sffff 1 2.5sq.m./person 0 $70,279 ® 37% 2 619,725 Planned Parks 1 9,168 2 13,953 Natural Areas Neighbourhood Community 1 City 1 Legacy 1 2 X City of Kitchener Ell 1 ofW5 Critical Needs Areas Summary QD Rosenberg community is a rapidly growing community that will see significant growth over the next decade. Existing local parks and residences are limited to a new neighbourhood south of Williamsburg Cemetery (1), between Huron and Fischer Hallman Roads. There are four neighbourhood parks within this neighbourhood of Rosenberg — Ferguson, Hewitt, Seabrook and West Oak Trail Parks (2). RBJ Schlegel Park (3) is directly connected to the Rosenberg community offering additional community recreational uses, though it sits outside the boundaries of all residential communities and is classified as a City Park. • Approximately 13,000 additional residents are planned in various developments between Trussler, Bleams and Fischer Hallman Roads (4). These new developments are largely planned through their respective subdivision approval processes at the time of this report. There are currently 13 local parks planned at a total area of 101,700 sq.m., yielding a 7.8 sq.m. per person provision, raising the total community provision to 7.6 scl.m. per person. Conclusion Rosenberg's current park provision is a reflection of modern park acquisition standards and the tools within subdivision development. Parkland is deficient by the standards set within this document but represent the maximum allowable under Provincial legislation and practice of park dedication in Kitchener. The presence and connection of RBJ Schlegel will help offset the deficiency in parkland for the southern neighbourhoods. As detail development continues for new development it is critical to maximize the park properties for a variety of local and community park uses. Any limitations of grading, naturalized areas, or other encumbrances will further decrease the local park provision. 176 Appendix Page 212 SPIFFY No. Natural Areas 'Tlanned Parks Passive Neighbourhood Community I City I I$' Legacy 1 1 City of Kitchener "Ell 3 OfIRT Critical Needs Areas Summary The Southdale community contains four local parks, ranging from 0.2 —4.7 hectares. Mausser Park (1) is the largest planned park at 4.7 hectares. Veteran's Park Greenway (2) has been reclassified as a Neighbourhood Park through this evaluation. Planned parkland is within the desired quantity range and is well distributed. The south-east section of the community is under serviced but is supported by Shoemaker Greenway (3), Shoemaker Park (4) and neighbouring Meinzinger Park (5). Two school grounds are located within the community fabric, providing additional recreational opportunity. Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 178 Appendix Page 214 SPf17 1 114,761 .. 14.Osq.m./person � $50,735 i 60% No. 5 0* La ex Planned Parks 2 0 City of Kitchener Ell 5 A" Critical Needs Areas Summary St. Marys contains four local parks and one passive greenway. Veteran's Green (1) and Veteran's Green Interpretive Area (2) have been reclassified as Neighbourhood Parks through this evaluation, adding to the communities existing parks of Admiral (3) and Glendale Parks (4). Local park provision is well above city average and generally well distributed. The northern neighbourhood of the community under serviced for local parks, however it is further supported by JF Carmichael school grounds (5), and Woodside Green outside of the Community boundary (6). Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 180 Appendix Page 216 SPFff 1 .. .. 17.1 sq.m./person d $61,374 ® 40% No. L Neighbourhood Community 1 City 1 Legacy 1 1 • •.- 0 City of Kitchener e Critical Needs Areas Stant . Summary Stanley Park contains two of the largest natural areas within the City - a portion of Stanley Park Natural Area (1) and Idlewood Park Conservation Area (2), both feature trail connections through including the Dom Cardillo trail (3). There are four local parks, Franklin Park (4) is the largest of which at 3.7 hectares. Planned parkland is within the desired quantity range and are generally well distributed. At the time of this report a fifth Local park (Fergus Green, 5) will add an additional 1,000 sq.m. to the Local park provision and address a gap in the walkshed analysis along Fergus Ave. The community is further supported by Woodland Cemetery (6) for passive recreational use and three school grounds, two of which are well integrated with their adjacent park spaces (St. Daniel and Franklin schools). Conclusion The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives. u 182 Appendix Page 218 SPFff No. 1 Planned Parks 12 3 1 0 0 3 1 City of Kitchener Sq.m. 477,612 @tl 9 AW Critical Needs Areas Summary Vanier is the third most populous community with over 15,000 residents, containing 5 local parks, one of which is classified as a community level park - Wilson (1). Wilson accounts for nearly three quarters of that area. The remaining area is divided among the 4 neighbourhood parks Greenfield, Kingsdale, Traynor and Vanier (2). The community is further supported by Traynor Trail (3), a critical pedestrian link between the residential neighbourhoods and commercial destinations of Fairway Road and Fairview Mall (4). Conclusion Vanier is an already large community that is targeted as a high priority growth area by the KGMP (2019-21), and subject to growth planning through an upcoming Blockline/Fairway PARTS secondary plan. Specific park acquisitions will be addressed through the secondary planning stage of this community. 0 The community is a high priority for local park acquisition and should be targeted around the growth areas projected around the LRT station points and existing high density residential neighbourhoods. Improvements to Vanier and Wilson are scheduled for 2021/22, Traynor Trail in 2022 and Traynor Park completed in 2019. Further improvements to Kingsdale and Greenfield Parks are recommended to be considered high priority. 184 Appendix Page 220 of 317 No. 2 1 Neighbourhood Community City 1 Legacy 1 1c City of Kitchener "91321 OflASr Critical Needs Areas Victoria Hills Summary The Victoria Hills community is well serviced within its boundaries, containing twelve total parks, with 5 being local parks. Growski Park (1) has been reclassified as a Community Park at 6.1 hectares. Fenwick Green (2) and Scharlach Green (3) have been reclassified as Neighbourhood Parks through this evaluation, in addition to Filsinger Park (4) being reclassified as Passive. Filsinger Park is a vast open space that is predominantly naturalized creek channel and Hydro corridor. Within the park are areas suitable for Local park considerations. Parkland is well distributed throughout the community, offering a variety of recreation and sport facilities. The parks are further supported with five natural areas, Henry Strum Greenway (5), and complementary outdoor amenities at schools located within the community. Conclusion Including fractured neighbourhood park elements of Filsinger Park, the community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. It is recommended that Filsinger Park be evaluated for local park improvements to both the existing community use and expansion of local park use, particularly within the existing maintained turf areas to the west of the property. None u 186 Appendix Page 222 of 317 1 1110,801 • 0 .4sq.m./person 0 $55,573 ® 48% Planned Parks No. 2 3 6 1 0 0 �c p- `0.0.5 S�POE PNO 75,301 145,919 29,164 61,232 m 2 ON 00. °q Mo \ G0.oJE00. J OREO. ° ��r S 6LTH )GLOB .EIYWI6.K r �`OF PS4 ❑CEMETERY GREEN y' `Ey F�ILSINGER ARK vicMouNr ox _ c ❑ "'A"NA % s E,E �G�`PNO SCHARLA( GREEN ° OPEC R �c E 9L E OQ O.(P RPJ City of Kitchener "91323 OfTaT Critical Needs Areas Victoria Park QD Summary With City and Legacy parks excluded from the Critical Needs Area assessments, Victoria Park (1) is not considered local park provision. Instead, Homewood Green (2) at roughly 400 sq.m. is the only true local park within the community. In addition to Victoria Park, the central section of the Iron Horse Trail (3), Henry Sturm Green community garden (4), and Victoria Green/Schneider Haus (5) all support recreational service to the Victoria Park community. Conclusion Based on the principles of this assessment the Victoria Park community is critically deficient in local parkland. Victoria Park offers a wide range of passive and active recreational opportunities for local neighbourhoods, though limited by its city-wide popularity and highly planned nature. To address the deficiency, the following recommendations can be made: • Assess the benefit of peripheral Victoria Park property, such as 86 Heins Ave (6), for local park use or improved local access; • Improve pedestrian connections from the high density residential neighbourhood in the north-west corner of the community (7); and • Continue to assess park acquisition opportunities in neighbourhoods with poor access to Victoria Park, including the southern and northern community boundaries (8). Further detail will be explored in a dedicated topic under Places. u 188 Appendix Page 224 SPft7 1 :-: 0.1 sq.m./person 0 $57,516 ® 72% Planned Parks Passive No. Sq.m. 0 0 1 395 0 0 1 186,754 0 1 City of Kitchener "91325 OfWSr Critical Needs Areas Westmount Summary Westmount community contains two local parks in Westwood (1) and Argyle (2) neighbourhood parks. The vast majority of the total area is within Westwood Park at approximately 23,000 sq.m. The community shares its boundary with the Iron Horse Trail (3) to further support recreational use, and Westmount Public School campus (4) as additional recreational opportunities. Central to the community is Westmount Golf Course (5), offering no recreational benefit as a privately owned and operated property. Bordering community park Growski (6) is accessible for some of the southern neighbourhoods to offset the low park provision, with the CN rail line as the barrier for access for other neighbourhoods. Conclusion To address the local park deficiency of Westmount, at least 20,000 square meters of local park space is required assuming no further population growth. Target areas should be in both the south-western and south-eastern neighborhoods to maximize park distribution and target higher density areas (7 & 8). An acquisition strategy is recommended with the size of parkland(s) required, however staff should continue to evaluate development opportunities using the tool within this report. u 190 Appendix Page 226 of 317 0 4,987 26,214sq.m. 5.3sq.m./person No. Sq.m. 1 12,505 1 Neighbourhood Community 1 City 1 Legacy 1 1c 26,214 K51 ❑ C �P1EWP� A� ARGYLE 'A� K 0.USHOW`E RD . ' <Q m P,� a Gtp'0.E�O� a �E %% DUONESSP a El 0P ❑GpES NDo O0.P U City of Kitchener 91327 0099 NUNt f'�G0.ES W St G�PSOO p zfp OQ p G0. m. 0 A NWo ARGYLE 'A� K 0.USHOW`E RD . ' <Q m P,� a Gtp'0.E�O� a �E %% DUONESSP a El 0P ❑GpES NDo O0.P U City of Kitchener 91327 0099 FACILITY Chapter 273 PARK DEDICATION Article 1 — PARK DEDICATION 273.1.1 — Definitions 273.1.2 — Development or Redevelopment 273.1.3 — Calculating Park Land 273.1.4 — Conveyance of Park Land or Cash -in -Lieu of Park Land 273.1.5 — Transition Article 2 — REPEAL 273.2.1 —Administration and Appeal 273.2.2 — By-law - previous WHEREAS section 42, 51.1 and 53 of the Planning Act, R.S.0.1990, c. P.13 as amended (the "Act") provides that as a condition of development, redevelopment or approval of a plan of a plan of subdivision, the Council of a municipality may require land in an amount not exceeding, in the case of land proposed for development or redevelopment for commercial or industrial purposes, two percent and for all other cases five percent of the land be conveyed to the City for park or other public recreational purposes; (42 (1), 51.1 (1)) AND WHEREAS the Act permits an alternative requirement with respect to land for residential purposes, of dedication at a rate of one hectare for each 300 dwelling units proposed subject to specific policies with respect thereto being set forth in the city's Official Plan; (42 (3), 51.1 (2), 53 (13)) AND WHEREAS the Act permits the Council of a municipality to require the payment of money to the value of land in lieu of the conveyance of land; (42 (6), 51.1 (3)) AND WHEREAS the Act permits a maximum rate of one hectare for each 500 dwelling units under the money in lieu of land calculation. (42 (6.0.1), 51.1 (3.1)) KITCHENER 273.1 JULY 2017 Page 228 of 317 PARK DEDICATION Article 1 PARK DEDICATION 273.1.1 - Definitions Adaptive Re -use — alteration or change of use of an existing building or structure to some other use or alteration or change of an existing building or structure to create new residential units. City — means the geographic area under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener, or the Corporation of the City of Kitchener, as the case may be. Consent — means the development approval for which the process is set out in section 53 of the Planning Act, and includes severances. Convey — to transfer an interest in land. &A Council — means the Council of the City. Development — the construction, erection or placing of one or more buildings or structures on lands, or an addition or alteration to a building or structure that has the effect of substantially increasing the size or usability thereof. Director of Parks and Cemeteries — means an officer or employee of the City who: Holds the position of the Director of Parks and Cemeteries or comparable position; Holds a successor position at the City with responsibility for subject matters similar to those of the Director of Parks and Cemeteries; or, iii. Acts in place of either of the foregoing. Dwelling Unit — any property that is used or designed for use as a domestic establishment in which one or more persons may sleep and prepare and serve meals. Flood Plain Conservation Lands — land reserved for the use of maintaining regional flood capacity as outlined by the Grand River Conservation Authority. Gross Floor Area - the aggregate horizontal area measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls of all storeys of a building (excluding any portion of a storey devoted exclusively to parking) within all buildings on a lot. Legalization of existing dwelling units — the City process in which a new building permit is obtained for existing residential units that are not legally recognized under Building Division records. Mixed use — a building with at least one dwelling unit and a non-residential use. Multi -Unit — a building containing two or more non-residential uses within two or more separated spaces for lease or occupancy. A multi -unit building shall be managed and operated as one unit with shared on-site parking. A multi -unit building shall not include a mixed use building. Natural Heritage Conservation — the use of land, water, and/or structures for the protection, management, and conservation of the natural heritage system. Natural heritage conservation may include the preservation, KITCHENER 273 JUNE 2022 Page 229 of 317 PARK DEDICATION maintenance, sustainable utilization, restoration, and/or enhancement of the natural environment, and may include forest, fish, and wildlife management. Owner — the Registered Owner(s) of the property upon which the development of redevelopment is being undertaken. Park land — includes land for parks and other public recreational purposes. Planning Act — means the Ontario Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. Redevelopment — the removal of buildings or structures from a site and the construction or erection of other buildings or structures thereon, including adaptive re -use. Site Plan — means the development approval as described in section 41 of the Planning Act. Stormwater dedicated areas — land dedicated, designed and engineered for the purpose of stormwater management. .. k Subdivision — means the process for subdividing land that is set out in section 51 of the Planning Act. AMMIMW 273.1.2 - Development or Redevelopment, Except as provided in this by-law, no person shall development or redevelopment land within the City unless the owner of the land has conveyed or agreed to convey land to the City in the amount or amounts as calculated set out in this By-law. isommmumbl, 1101111W As a condition of development or redevelopment of land within the City of Kitchener, the owner shall convey to the City land for park or other public recreation purposes. In addition to the conditions within this by-law, exemptions and reductions shall also be enacted through the Park Dedication Policy and as follows: a) Where the development or redevelopment land use is Residential, then: Land will be taken at Consent, in the amount of 5% of the total land being developed or redeveloped; Land will be taken at Subdivision in the amount of 5% of the total land being developed or redeveloped, or one (1) hectare for each three hundred (300) dwelling units proposed, whichever is greater; or Land will be taken at Site Plan in the amount of 5% of the land being developed or redeveloped, or one (1) hectare for each three hundred (300) dwelling units proposed, whichever is greater. b) Where the development or redevelopment land use is Institutional, then land will be taken at a rate of 5% of the total land being developed or redeveloped. c) For land being developed which is not proposed for land use as Residential or Institutional, then where it is being developed or redeveloped, land will be taken at a rate of 2% of the total land being developed or redeveloped. d) Where the Director of Parks and Cemeteries determines cash -in -lieu of park land is applied to the above alternative residential rates, one (1) hectare for each five hundred (500) dwelling units proposed is the maximum rate. KITCHENER 273 JUNE 2022 Page 230 of 317 PARK DEDICATION 273.1.3 — Calculating Park Land ?73.1.3.1 — Factors for Calculations The following sets out the criteria of calculating park land or cash -in -lieu of park land dedication as condition of development: a) Where the development land use is Residential, park land dedication as a condition of Site Plan will be based on net proposed dwelling units, with further interpretation as follows: i) Existing dwelling units that are to be retained will not be included in the park dedication calculation. ii) Existing dwelling units that are to be demolished, or have been demolished within five (5) years of the development or redevelopment, from the date of demolition permit issuance to the date of Approval in Principle, will be deducted from the net proposed dwelling units. iii) Legalization of existing dwelling units are considered proposed dwelling units. iv) Additional dwelling units (ADU's) are considered proposed dwelling units. b) Where the development land use is Residential, park land dedication as a condition of Subdivision is determined as follows: i) All land within Plans of Subdivision is eligible for use in calculation of park dedication requirements, less hazard lands, natural heritage features, ecological buffers or any naturalized features that are non -developable or will otherwise be conveyed to the City through other processes. ii) Dedicated stormwater areas are considered eligible land area for use in calculating park dedication within Plans of Subdivision. nit blocks are calculated as follows: In accordance with the number of dwelling units specified within multi -unit blocks on the proposed draft plan of subdivision; and In cases where a specified number of high-density units are not provided on multi -unit blocks within a draft plan of subdivision, the parkland requirement for each block shall be calculated up to the maximum number of units allowed within the density range of each block. c) Where the development land use is Residential, park land dedication as a condition of Consent is determined as follows: i) Park land or cash -in -lieu of land will only be required on newly created development properties. d) Where the development land use is Residential in addition to a non-residential use, park land dedication is determined as follows: KITCHENER 273 JUNE 2022 Page 231 of 317 PARK DEDICATION i) Park land or cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be applied to each type of use, calculated separately as independent applications and combined to form the total park dedication requirements. e) Where the development land use is Commercial, Industrial and Institutional, park land dedication is determined as follows: i) In the event of development or redevelopment of commercial or industrial lands, dedication will be based on the percentage of new net gross floor area (proposed GFA less demolished GFA) to the total gross floor area (proposed GFA plus retained GFA), applied to the maximum required dedication (2%) f) Where there is discrepancy in the development land use, the land zoning shall be used to determine park dedication requirements. 273.1.3.2 – Exemptions or Rk-Onctions ;V1%L In addition to the exemptions and reductions within this by-law, exemptions and reductions shall also be enacted through the Park Dedication Policy. No conveyance or additional conveyance of park land dedication or cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required for the following: a) If land has been conveyed or is required to be conveyed to a municipality for park or other public purposes or a payment in lieu has been received by the municipality or is owing to it under this section or a condition imposed under section 51.1 or 53, no additional conveyance or payment in respect of the land subject to the earlier conveyance or payment may be required by a municipality in respect of subsequent development or redevelopment unless: there is a change in the proposed development or redevelopment which would increase the density of development; or land originally proposed for development or redevelopment for commercial or industrial purposes is now proposed for development or redevelopment for other purposes. exemptions listed in subsection (a), previous conveyances in either park land ation or cash -in -lieu of park land dedication deducted from current park dedication lation. Cash -in -lieu of land deductions will be based on the land that was required and converted to cash value at the time of dedication. b) Replacement of an existing commercial or industrial building equal to or less than the existing gross floor area. c) The proposed use is a temporary sales centre as defined in the Zoning By -Law 2019-051. KITCHENER 273 JUNE 2022 Page 232 of 317 PARK DEDICATION 273.1.4 — Conveyance of Park Land or Cash -in -Lieu of Park Land 273.1.4.1 — Conveyance and Acceptance of Land In addition to the conditions of conveyance and acceptance of park land dedication within this by-law, conditions of conveyance and acceptance shall also be enacted through the Park Dedication Policy. a) Lands conveyed to the City of Kitchener pursuant to this By-law shall be conveyed: i) Free and clear from all encumbrances; and, ii) In a condition deemed satisfactory by the Director of Parks and Cemeteries and in accordance with the requirements of the City's Official Plan, Park Dedication Policy, Development Manual and other City policies related to the acquisition of real property. * '44NOW b) The Director of Parks and Cemeteries retains the right to not accept the conveyance of land that is considered unsuitable, including: 'IV i) Environmental lands, including but not limited to: i. Natural Heritage Conservation lands; ii. Cultural Heritage landscapes and corridors; iii. Stormwater dedicated areas; iv. Flood Plain Conservation Lands; 7W v. Woodlots; NkAmw vi. Streams, creeks or wetlands; and/or, vii. Steep or unstable slopes. ii) Contaminated or suspected of being contaminated; Any land having unsuitable or unstable soil conditions for intended recreation facilities; Hydro rights -of -ways or easements; Privately built, owned and operated recreational areas; and/or, Any portion of land that would serve a purpose that is contradictory for the intended use as public park land. c) Notwithstanding 273.1.5.1.a, the City may at its sole discretion, under special circumstances and as directed by the Director of Parks and Cemeteries or designate: i) Accept environmental lands as a means for protection of the natural amenity or for potential use as a passive recreational and educational feature; ii) Accept lands that have been disturbed, filled, stripped, or containing debris by any other means, provided the Owner undertake restoration of the land to the satisfaction of the City and at the Owners cost; KITCHENER 273 JUNE 2022 Page 233 of 317 PARK DEDICATION iii) Reduce the park land or cash -in -lieu of park land dedication requirement for privately built, owned and/or operated spaces that are publicly accessible without restriction to the public, in accordance with the requirements set out in the City's Park Dedication Policy as amended; iv) Accept suspected contaminated lands provided due diligence in environmental analyses is completed, submitted to and accepted by the City at the sole discretion of the Director of Parks and Cemeteries, including but not limited to: i. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) per CSA -Z768 (current revision); ii. Phase II ESA as per CSA Z769 (current revision); and/or iii. Minister's acknowledgement of a Record of Site Condition. v) Accept land that is outside of the development limits within the boundaries of development, as set out in the Park Dedication Policy. d) Any legal and administrative costs associated with the conveyance of land shall be the responsibility of the Owner. e) Any requirement to convey land to the City for park or other recreational purposes is fulfilled when the City accepts the conveyance. 273.1.4.2 — Cash -in -Lieu of Land u In addition to the conditions of cash -in -lieu of park land dedication within this by-law, conditions of cash -in - lieu of park land dedication shall also be enacted through the Park Dedication Policy. Where the Director of Parks and Cemeteries determines cash -in -lieu of park land dedication is required, the following criteria apply: "'._ ANO a) Land value for purposes of cash -in -lieu of land conveyance shall be based on valuation rates determined by an accredited appraiser (AACI) for the specified classes of land. This schedule is referred to under Appendix "A". b) In the event there is a discrepancy, challenge of the accredited values or a development that is not of a type set out Appendix `A', the Owner may obtain an appraisal of the land prepared " by an accredited appraiser with the Appraisal Institute of Canada (AACI) and in accordance with the City's terms of reference, with costs paid for by the Owner. The City may: i) Accept the appraisal; or, ii) Require a peer review, paid for by the City to confirm appraisal valuation. c) The market value shall be fixed in accordance with the appraisal obtained by the City. d) All cash -in -lieu of land dedication requirements must be received and paid into a special account administered by the City of Kitchener. e) Deferral of cash -in -lieu of park land dedication may be pursued at the discretion of the Director of Parks and Cemeteries, as set out in the Park Dedication Policy. KITCHENER 273 JUNE 2022 Page 234 of 317 PARK DEDICATION 273.1.4.3 — Timing Park land conveyance, or the payment of cash -in -lieu of land for any development or redevelopment shall be received by the City prior to the following, at the City's discretion: a) Issuance of the first building permit for the proposed development or redevelopment, in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act; b) Approval of Plan of Subdivision or Condominium, in accordance with Section 51 of the Planning Act; or, c) Consent being granted, in accordance with Section 53 of the Planning Act. 273.1.5 — Transition 4ek Notwithstanding anything else contained in this by-law, a development or redevelopment shall not be subject to the parkland dedication requirements set out in this by-law and shall be instead subject to the parkland dedication requirements set out in By -Law 273 where the following has occurred in relation to the development or redevelopment: a) On the day before the effective date, pursuant to the Planning Act, a complete application has been submitted for one or more of the following: , i) Official Plan Amendment; ii) Zoning By-law Amendment; iii) Site Plan; iv) Vacant Land Condominium; v) Subdivision; or vi) Consent; and, "` T"_ -ame development or redevel effective date of the by-law: t has received one of the following within 12 months Final Site Plan Approval; Draft Plan approval for Subdivision; Draft plan approval Vacant Land Condominium; or, Provisional Consent. c) Notwithstanding anything contained this section, if an application set out in subsection (a) is appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, then the 12 month period set out in subsection (b) shall be suspended for the duration of said appeal until all of such appeal(s) have been withdrawn or finally disposed of, whereupon the 12 month period shall resume. KITCHENER 273 JUNE 2022 Page 235 of 317 PARK DEDICATION Article 2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND REPEAL 273.2.1 - Administration and Appeal This By -Law shall come into force and effect on the day that it is passed. The administration of this By -Law and the determination of the application of this By -Law is hereby delegated by Council to the Director of Director of Parks and Cemeteries. AN& 273.2.2 — By-law - previous - - By-law 2008-93 and the contents of Chapter 273 will be repealed on the effective date: KITCHENER 273 JUNE 2022 Page 236 of 317 PARK DEDICATION Appendix'A' Land Valuations Effective Date: June 20, 2022 Category Applicable Built Form $ per Acre $ per Hectare Retail/Neighbourhood N/A $1,550,000 $3,830,000 Commercial Industrial N/A $750,000 $1,853,000 Employment / Office N/A $950,000 $2,348,000 Residential — Lots Individual lots, including: $11,000 $36,080 • Single detached (per linear foot) (per linear meter) • Semi detached • Townhomes Residential - Low Density Subdivision, including: $950,000 $2,348,000 • Single detached • Semi detached • Townhomes Residential — Medium (<2 FSI) Cluster townhouse $1,550,000 $3,830,000 Stacked townhouse Quad units Residential - Medium, Mixed Use N/A $2,400,000 $5,931,000 (<2 FSI) Residential - High, 5-10 FSI N/A $8,000,000 $19,768,000 Residential - High, 10+ FSI N/A $17,500,000 $43,243,000 Minimum Update Required: June 20, 2023 Maximum Update Required: June 20, 2024 KITCHENER 273 JUNE 2022 Page 237 of 317 1 KiTci��vER PARK DEDICATION POLICY 1 General The Planning Act authorizes municipalities to require the conveyance of land for park or other public recreational purposes as a condition of development, redevelopment or approval of a plan of subdivision. The City of Kitchener enacts this tool through the Park Dedication By-law, Chapter 273. The By -Law provides the City's specific application of the Planning Act conditions, including interpretations, exemptions and requirements of conveyances. The Park Dedication Policy guides the application of the by-law tool, allowing for additional clarity in processes and strategic direction as approved by Council. 2 Principles Aft - The following principles of park dedication shall be followed when applying dedication requirements to development alications: 1. All development impacts the communities living and working in Kitchener. Public park space is intended for use by all communities in Kitchener, whether living or working in the City, and is vital to supporting complete communities. Public park space is focused on areas where public use and "access to it is the highest need — typically in residential areas. As a result, all development should "contribute toward the provision of public park space, but the nature of some development should contribute more significantly. 2. Park land will be evaluated based on a metric of square meters per resident, which both targets and policy guidelines will unify under. 3. In all circumstances parkland dedication in the form of land is preferred over alternative forms of dedication, such as cash in lieu of land; a. Plans of subdivision must yield developable land for park purposes with no constraints to active park use and the provision of park facilities, unless otherwise determined by the City of Kitchener b. Infill development, or development within identified park land deficient communities, must make every effort to provide public park land where park land is deemed necessary by the City of Kitchener. Page 238 of 317 3 Interpretations Park Provision For the purposes of this policy, interpretation is required to convert Planning Policy from a provision of hectares per residential unit to square meters per resident. Refer to the chart in Appendix `A' to calculate projected park provisions within a variety of development and application types. Where residential units cannot be defined, the average persons per household within the City of Kitchener will be used. Park Land A park is defined as land that is reserved or used for public recreation, leisure, environmental protection and ecological function. For the purposes of this policy, parks are Planned Parks that are publicly owned, managed, and constructed with intent to serve as a recreational amenity. Other forms of park land are recognized as follows: 'V41,1W 1. Natural lands, hazard lands and environmentally significant lands: Lands that may include the preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilization, restoration, and/or enhancement of the natural environment, and may include forest, fish, and wildlife management. The City supports conveyance of these lands to public agency ownership and management to ensure and secure their permanent protection. These lands should be protected for the primacy of natural protection and biodiversity, and they should not be considered primarily for public use and recreation. As such, these lands are not considered eligible for park land dedication. 2. Privately Owned Public Space (POPS. AX Privately built, owned and either privately or publicly operated outdoor recreational amenities. The lands are held in private ownership, with capital asset management and renewal privately determined. Public access without restriction is required to be considered a public space. POPS are considered additional to a basic level of provision of public parks. The City recognizes the value of POPS in addition to public park space where no alternative option exists, and may provide credit towards the park land dedication requirement. 3. Strata parks: Publicly owned park spaces located on top of buildings or structures, including but not limited to parking garages. Land ownership is horizontally delineated between the structure and the surface. These spaces can serve park values, but overlay infrastructure which adds significant complexity to long term use and management. The City does not current consider public park use over infrastructure as contributing toward Parkland Dedication. 4. Other Open Spaces Page 239 of 317 Cities consist of a wide variety of public open space that contribute toward quality of life and complete communities. Spaces such as urban plazas, pedestrian first streets, enhanced boulevard spaces etc., can all contribute toward livable communities. These are all valued within a diverse and complete urban environment. However, these contribute over and above a basic provision of publicly owned and managed parkland spaces. Parkland Dedication is not considered appropriate 4 Exemptions, Reductions & Limitations Exemptions In addition to exemptions listed under Chapter 273.1.3, the following properties to be developed by, on behalf of, and for the use by are exempt from park dedication requirements: 1. The City of Kitchener 2. The Region of Waterloo 3. Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro, or successive electrical distribution organization 4. Publicly funded school boards operating within the City of Kitchener Post -secondary institutions Public hospitals as defined under the Public Hospitals Act; Notwithstanding the conditions of park land dedication under Chapter 273.1.2. and 273.1.3.1, all non- residential developments are exempt from park dedication requirements. Reductions 14 loorw Notwithstanding the Park Dedication requirements under Chapter 273, Council strategic reductions will apply as follows: MOM, dMMMLOWa.,- IMM. 1. Proposed development recognized by the City of Kitchener as Affordable Housing shall be reduced ',asfollows: i. Supportive housing initiatives —100% reduction ii. Affordable rental housing under CMHC definitions of monthly rent equal to or less than 80% of the average monthly rent of the regional market, and registered with the City as such for a minimum of 15 years - maximum park dedication 5% of the land area Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) will be excluded from park dedication unit calculations. In cases where developments are strictly for the installation of an Accessory Dwelling Unit, they will be exempt from park dedication requirements. Proposed privately built, owned and/or operated spaces that are publicly accessible without restriction, may be eligible for park land dedication reduction up to 25% of the total park dedication requirement, as measured by land areas only. Registration of public access easements on title are required to qualify for the maximum reduction. Page 240 of 317 Limitations Notwithstanding the Park Dedication requirements under Chapter 273, strategic limitations will apply as follows: 5 Where land is being taken as a condition of Site Plan Approval, park dedication will be limited to 10% of the total site area. The balance of park dedication is required in cash -in -lieu form. Site specific conditions may yield park land greater than the limit stipulated, to be determined on each development application between the City and Applicant. Where land is being taken as a condition of Subdivision or Site Plan approval, park dedication will be limited to the lesser of 10 sq.m. per resident, or 1 hectare per 300 units. Residential unit conversion methods are referenced in Appendix A. 40ML All cash -in -lieu contributions for residential development will be limited to $11,862 per dwelling unit regardless of the land use category it falls within and specific appraisals submitted on the lands. Park Dedication — La Accepting Land as Park In addition to the acceptance requirements under Chapter 273.1.4.1. and Kitchener's Development Manual Section L, the following criteria apply to accepting park land: 1. Have sufficient public right of way frontage to ensure: a. Unencumbered, barrier free public access from right of way b. Safety and high visibility to ensure maximum natural surveillance from the right of way Meet the overall design, property geometry, drainage, stormwater and topographical requirements of its intended use Subdivision Land as a park dedication requirement will be pursued in all subdivision development. Subdivision applications that submit modifications following Draft Plan of Approval and establishment of park property boundaries will have the Park Dedication requirement re -calculated based on revised residential unit totals. The Developer is responsible for rectifying deficiencies in park supply resulting from the submitted modification. Site Plan Development The City of Kitchener will use the following three -stage criteria to determine if land dedication will be pursued or accepted from an infill development through Site Plan Application process: Stage 1: Either must apply Page 241 of 317 1. Located within any community with a park acquisition priority (Low, Medium, High, Critical, refer to Appendix `B' for the list of community areas); or 2. Development creates a need for park acquisition by reducing the community park provision below the City's average. Stage 2: All must apply 1. The site is suitable for use as public park land, in current or remediated states; 2. Free and clear from all encumbrances, in current or remediated states, unless otherwise deemed acceptable by the Director of Parks and Cemeteries. Stage 3: Recommended 3 must apply: 1. Land connects to existing or planned park or open space system 2. Compliments existing recreational features and assets within the community 3. Land is situated within 500m walking distance of the development or residences it is intended to serve 4. Provide a space for people of all ages, genders, cultures, religions, abilities and incomes 5. Suitable for future community needs and gr owth , ,A& Final determination and acceptance of land through Site Plan review processes is at the discretion of the City at the discretion of the Director of Parks and Cemeteries., --- Off -Site Dedication If a development is to provide land as its park dedication requirement, it is expected to do so within the limits of the development. In applications where land is critical or high needs for park service delivery, dedication of land off-site may be pursued if mutually agreed upon by both the Developer and City of Kitchener. Off-site land must meet the same criteria as identified in Chapter 273.1.4.1, Development Manual Section L and under the Park Dedication Policy, Section 5, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Parks and Cemeteries Off-site land will be considered land area based within the Park Dedication requirement. Off-site land will be considered equal to land provided on-site, regardless of the property's market value. If the total park dedication cannot be met with off-site dedications, the remaining land requirement will apply to the development site and required as an additional cash -in -lieu dedication. Off-site dedication will be pursued at the sole discretion of the Director of Parks and Cemeteries and must establish a direct connection to the impact of the proposed development. Page 242 of 317 6 Park Dedication — Cash -in -lieu Balances In all cases, the City will seek land through Parkland Dedication. Where the maximum land requirement cannot be achieved a blend of land and cash in lieu of land will be sought. Cash -in -lieu will be calculated by the remaining hectares of land required. Park Land Deferrals If development is to be completed in phases, the cash -in -lieu park dedication for future phases may be deferred as set out in a Parkland Deferral Agreement to be registered on title as a separate agreement in addition to the Section 41 Site Plan Agreement. 410101MV 14MMM01k, The following criteria are to be followed if a developer chooses to pursue park land deferrals. All criteria are subject to the discretion and approval of the Director of Planning in consultation with the Director of Parks and Open Spaces: 1. Park land deferrals does not apply to Land dedication 2. The developer must provide rationale and business case for proposed deferral agreement 3. The developer is subject to additional administration fees that are not captured within the Section 41 agreement process 4. The condition of park land dedication within the Site Plan Agreement can only be completed once the developer has received a fully executed copy of the Parkland Deferral Agreement Page 243 of 317 7 Appendix `A' Average Persons per Residential Dwelling Type Source: Statistics Canada, 2021 Census Data Census Subdivision: Kitchener Data Table: Type of Dwelling: Structural type of dwelling and household size (released April 27, 2022) Built Form Residents per Dwelling Unit City-wide Average 2.6 Structural Type of Dwelling: Single -Detached 2.9 Semi -Detached 2.9 Rowhouse 2.7 Apartment, stacked town, flat or duplex 2.3 Apartment, >5 storeys 1.8 Apartment, <5 storeys 1.9 Other, single -attached dwelling 2.4 ■ Page 244 of 317 Appendix `B' City of Kitchener Communities Community Park Acquisition Priority City Comm. Core Critical Civic Centre Critical King East Critical KW Hospital Critical Pioneer Tower East Critical Alpine High Bridgeport West High Doon South High Mill Courtland High Vanier High Central Frederick Medium Centerville Chicopee Medium Grand River North Medium Rockway Medium Rosemount Medium Victoria Park Medium Westmount Medium Brigadoon Low Country Hills East Low Fairfield Low Grand River South Low Heritage Park Low Hidden Valley Low Laurentian West Low Rosenberg Low Non-residential Communities (no priority) Dundee Huron Park South Plains Trillium Industrial Park Trussler Victoria North Community Park Acquisition Priority Auditorium None Bridgeport East None Bridgeport North None Cedar Hill None Cherry Hill None Country Hills None Country Hills West None Eastwood None Forest Heights None Forest Hill None Highland West None Huron South None Idlewood None Laurentian Hills None Lower Doon None Meinzinger Park None Mt Hope Huron Park None Northward None Pioneer Park None Pioneer Tower West None Southdale None St. Mary's None Stanley Park None Victoria Hills None Page 245 of 317 Waterloo Region Home Builders' Association 1!4 04 MAY 2022 Via Email to City of Kitchener Staff <Mark.Parris@kitchener.ca> <Tim.Donegani@kitchener.ca> <Eric.Riek@kitchener.ca> Promoting Building Excellence and Creating Communities in Waterloo Region Since 1946 RE: WRHBA Preliminary Comments to the City of Kitchener, Parkland Dedication Bylaw Update Since 1946, the Waterloo Region Home Builders' Association (WRHBA) has stood as a pivotal key stakeholder in community development and an economic contributor in Waterloo Region. WRHBA member companies have worked to help shape the robust and thriving communities across our municipalities and townships for 75 years. WRHBA member companies construct over 90% of all new residential construction. The residential development construction industry is collectively one of the largest economic engines driving the Regions' economy, creating over 20,500 jobs, 1.3 billion in wages, and 2.3 billion in investment value. The WRHBA welcomes the opportunity to provide input to the City of Kitchener's Parkland Dedication Update by 20 MAY as suggested by city staff. We have assembled a Parkland By -Law Review Working Group to participate in providing feedback. This group is led by Maria Kyveris (PK Custom Homes), WRHBA's immediate past President, a Board Director and Co -Chair of the Kitchener Liaison Development Committee (KDLC). Other members include Jennifer Meader, (Turkstra Mazza Associates), Paul Britton (MHBC), Alex Vandersluis (Schlegel Urban Development), Kevin Muir (Zehr Group). As part of this review, the Working Group reviewed the following information provided by the City: — Park Dedication Update — Consultation with Development Communitv. Home Builders Association. Prepared by, Mark Parris, City of Kitchener, April 6, 2022 — Park Dedication Summary Update, Places & Spaces - Parks Strategic Plan; Released 28 APRIL 22 — Park Land Dedication, Home Builder Request for Info, Email dated, 14 APRIL 22 As a result of our initial review, we offer the following preliminary comments and perspectives for your consideration. 1) We request clarification/confirmation as to how the land values for the various types of development were established. We note that the City intends to apply a flat rate of $11,862 per unit, regardless of the overall density of the proposed development. We request that the City's parkland by-law establish the process for indexing and/or revisiting this rate. 2. Please provide a copy of the City's reserve fund statement for parkland dedication. This will be important in understanding the funding the City currently holds that can be applied to the Waterloo Region Home Builders' Association 1C-625 King St East Kitchener, ON N2G 4V4 B: 519.884.7590 Page 1 Page 246 of 317 acquisition of parkland. This will be particularly helpful in understanding the City's resources, considering that it has acquired only one property since 1984, as indicated in the aforementioned summaries provided by the City. 3) Parkland requirements are to be based on the Planning Act which does not recognize a dedication requirement based upon bedrooms as is proposed. A per bedroom requirement is contrary to objectives of building affordable family apartment units in intensification areas. Staff should clarify the various proposed parkland dedication rates by building typology which align with the Provincial framework of 1 hectare per 300/500 units. Unit densities referenced in the By-law should be informed by census data and updated with each new census. 4. The City should establish a formula for situations in which a combination of land and cash -in -lieu of land are required. The formula should be in accordance with the Planning Act. There should not be an arbitrary cap on POPS or stratified parks to be considered for parkland dedication purposes if the parkland areas are open/available to the public and particularly if they are maintained by a condo corporation or entity other than the City, thereby limiting the City's liability and maintenance costs. Instead, these alternative forms of parkland should be granted 100% credit. Given affordability issues and land scarcity, and given that these parks will function the same as typical public parks, innovative solutions are required and should be encouraged by the City. Flexibility and creativity is required by all stakeholders to ensure that parkland can be delivered effectively and in balance with the provision of affordable housing solutions. 6) The parkland dedication by-law must clearly indicate the process for off-site parkland dedication and that such an approach is strictly on a voluntary basis. 7) The parkland dedication by-law should recognize that payment can be made at multiple stages of development, including in accordance with sections 51.1 and 53 of the Planning Act, with different valuations as a result. 8) There needs to be a dispute resolution process should there be disagreement regarding the valuation amount. The process should include a valuation by (a) qualified appraiser(s). 9) There should be an amendment to the Official Plan, allowing for credits on parkland dedication for sustainability features, pursuant to subsection 42(6.2) of the Planning Act. This would better balance parkland objectives with climate change objectives. 9) Consideration should be given to the value of open space lands and trails conveyed to the municipality with the value or area of land offset against parkland dedication. Furthermore, only developable portions of land that are subject to an application should be included in the lands considered for parkland dedication. In other words, non -developable lands should be netted out of the area that is subject to the parkland dedication calculation. 10) We understand that the City is proposing to prepare the second component of its parkland strategy, to be entitled "Places", after the parkland dedication by-law has been passed. We also understand that Places will identify the amount and general location for future parkland acquisition. As you know, the parkland dedication by-law is now appealable, given recent Waterloo Region Home Builders' Association 1C-625 King St East Kitchener, ON N2G 4V4 B: 519.884.7590 Page 2 Page 247 of 317 amendments to the Planning Act, which amendments also require that the parkland dedication by-law be supported by a parkland strategy. These amendments to the Planning Act place the parkland dedication regime under higher scrutiny than previously and suggest that a heighted degree of justification is required in support of a municipality's parkland acquisition program. Accordingly, it is imperative that the Places plan be fully completed in advance of the passing of the parkland dedication by-law. Places will justify the by-law, and at the same time, the by-law will implement Places. 11) Furthermore, given the need to fully ground the parkland acquisition program in the City's comprehensive parkland acquisition strategy, we would highly recommend that the strategy and resulting by-law emulate the development charges process. More specifically: a. Population and employment forecasts and land use designations should be applied to generate the future amount of parkland required. Reserve funds should be accounted for. c. Future development should not have to subsidize (increase) parkland per person for existing residents/uses. d. Secondary plans that clearly indicate the areas designated for parkland development should be expressly accounted for in the parkland acquisition strategy. e. For intensification, the City should identify specific lands needs and locations for parkland acquisition. f. The land or cash -in -lieu thereof that is acquired for new development should be fixed according to the above calculation. The WRHBA thanks the City for its consideration of these comments and concerns. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with staff further prior to the passing of the proposed parkland dedication by-law. Sincerely, WATERLOO REGION HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION Maria Kyveris, P. Eng Chair, Parkland Dedication Working Group maria.kvveris@roRers.com cc: Parkland Dedication Working Group WRHBA Board of Directors WRHBA Municipal Liaison Chairs WRHBA Member Companies 41__;� E �_ - Marie Schroeder Executive Officer Marie-schroeder@wrhba.com Waterloo Region Home Builders' Association 1C-625 King St East Kitchener, ON N2G 4V4 B: 519.884.7590 Page 3 Page 248 of 317 J KiT�NER May 26, 2022 Via email to the Waterloo Region Home Builders Association (WRHBA) Attn: Marie Schroeder (marie-schroedera-wrhba.com) Maria Kyveris (maria.kyverisa-rogers.com) Mark Parris, Landscape Architect Infrastructure Services Department Parks and Cemeteries Division Kitchener Operations Facility 131 Goodrich Dr. Kitchener, Ontario Canada, N2C 2E8 (519) 741-2600 ext 4397 Mark. Parris (ED kitchener.ca Re: WRHBA Preliminary Comments to the City of Kitchener, Parkland Dedication Bylaw Update On behalf of the project team at the City of Kitchener, thank you for submitting thorough and comprehensive commentary on the proposed Parkland Dedication By -Law and Policy. The efforts of the WRHBA working group leaders and members are appreciated and valued through this updating process. Following review of the submitted comments we are able to respond to each as follows: 1. We request clarification/confirmation as to how the land values for the various types of development were established. We note that the City intends to apply a flat rate of $11,862 per unit, regardless of the overall density of the proposed development. We request that the City's parkland by-law establish the process for indexing and/or revisiting this rate. Response: Land values have been determined by an independent AACI approved appraisal company (Antec) and are relevant to March, 2022. The revised By -Law commits the City to a regular review period of not less than 12 months to no more than 24 months. The City does not intend to index between property value reviews. This approach will ensure that the land values and land use categories remain reflective of market and that the cap rate fluctuates both up and down as market changes; the cap rate is indexed to the land use category of medium -density residential. 2. Please provide a copy of the City's reserve fund statement for parkland dedication. This will be important in understanding the funding the City currently holds that can be applied to the acquisition of parkland. This will be particularly helpful in understanding the City's resources, considering that it has acquired only one property since 1984, as indicated in the aforementioned summaries provided by the City. Response: The current Parkland Reserve balance is $8,600,000 as of May 25, 2022. It is noted that the Planning Act provides for the use of parkland dedication toward both the acquisition of new land, and the reinvestment to address growth pressures, in existing park space. Traditionally the City has allocated the majority of parkland dedication toward improvement of existing park spaces. This direction is recommended to change with the approval of the Spaces plan which establishes a new policy around investing parkland dedication to address priority areas identified in the plan. Page 249 of 317 3. Parkland requirements are to be based on the Planning Act which does not recognize a dedication requirement based upon bedrooms as is proposed. A per bedroom requirement is contrary to objectives of building affordable family apartment units in intensification areas. Staff should clarify the various proposed parkland dedication rates by building typology which align with the Provincial framework of 1 hectare per 300/500 units. Unit densities referenced in the By-law should be informed by census data and updated with each new census. Response: The proposed By -Law commits to collecting parkland at or below the Planning Act maximum alternative rates. The cap rate identified is based on land values and will be at or below the Planning Act maximum of 1:500, with the ratio of hectares per residential unit decreasing as land values exceed the cap. Within greenfield/subdivision, the By -Law and Policy reflect a commitment to collect land at the lesser rate of 1:300 (as per the Planning Act), or 10 square meters of parkland per person (the current City wide average provision and proposed City wide target). The requirement of park land will not exceed the maximum limits as set out in the Planning Act. In calculating the average parkland provision, the City relies on the most up to date census data (2021 currently), forecasts needs based on provincial growth targets, and uses relevant occupancy averages for the City (Kitchener census subdivision). 4. The City should establish a formula for situations in which a combination of land and cash -in -lieu of land are required. The formula should be in accordance with the Planning Act. Response: This will be addressed within the updated By -Law and Policy. Where the maximum land requirement cannot be achieved a blend of land and cash in lieu of land will be sought. Cash -in -lieu will be calculated by the remaining hectares of land required. This is in accordance with the Planning Act. 5. There should not be an arbitrary cap on POPS or stratified parks to be considered for parkland dedication purposes if the parkland areas are open/available to the public and particularly if they are maintained by a condo corporation or entity other than the City, thereby limiting the City's liability and maintenance costs. Instead, these alternative forms of parkland should be granted 100% credit. Given affordability issues and land scarcity, and given that these parks will function the same as typical public parks, innovative solutions are required and should be encouraged by the City. Flexibility and creativity is required by all stakeholders to ensure that parkland can be delivered effectively and in balance with the provision of affordable housing solutions. Response: The City, as with municipalities across Ontario, disagrees. The value of POPS that remain privately owned and are subject to future ownership and management beyond the control of the City, is less than land which is owned and maintained in the public interest. Future maintenance costs are addressed by the tax base, and therefore private maintenance of a public asset is not in the best interests of the wider community. Strata parkland is a relatively new approach to open space provision. Strata parks over other infrastructure forms, often parking garages and other underground spaces, have their asset lifespan determined by elements such as waterproof membranes. The accessibility of the parkland, need for renewal and replacement is dictated to by underground infrastructure. In addition to the risk posed to Page 2 of 6 Page 250 of 317 assets by underlying infrastructure, the use, maintenance and replacement of surface infrastructure is often constrained by the underlying land use. Ultimately both POPS and Strata parks carry significant risk to permanent long term public use and so cannot be considered equal to publicly owned assets free from private encumbrances. However, these spaces do provide some parkland benefit to the public. In alignment with other municipalities, the City's By -Law proposes that these can be considered as part of a holistic approach, represented as a deduction to parkland dedication requirements. 6. The parkland dedication by-law must clearly indicate the process for off-site parkland dedication and that such an approach is strictly on a voluntary basis. Response: Agreed; off-site parkland dedication will be brought forward as an optional tool within the Planning Approval stages with two willing parties required (City and Developer). It is the intent of the policy to provide a potential benefit to both Developer and City to achieve a shared vision of a complete community and possibly distinct financial value to the Developer. 7. The parkland dedication by-law should recognize that payment can be made at multiple stages of development, including in accordance with sections 5 1. 1 and 53 of the Planning Act, with different valuations as a result. Response: Agreed; the revised By -Law and Policy will reflect existing practice to offer deferred and staggered payments of parkland dedication. Such agreements will be entered into, where the City agrees it is appropriate to do so, only at the request of the Developer. 8. There needs to be a dispute resolution process should there be disagreement regarding the valuation amount. The process should include a valuation by (a) qualified appraiser(s). Response: Agreed; this will be addressed within the updated By -Law and Policy, and a continuation of the current Policy. In any instance where a developer wishes to an independent appraisal of the land may be undertaken. Parkland dedication will be collected at a revised rate if the appraisal determines that the underlying land valuation applied by the City are too high. 9. There should be an amendment to the Official Plan, allowing for credits on parkland dedication for sustainability features, pursuant to subsection 42(6.2) of the Planning Act. This would better balance parkland objectives with climate change objectives. Response: There will be no credits or reductions applied for parkland dedication beyond those established with the parkland dedication By -Law and Policy. This issue can be considered through the next Official Plan review, anticipated to start in 2023. Page 3 of 6 Page 251 of 317 10. Consideration should be given to the value of open space lands and trails conveyed to the municipality with the value or area of land offset against parkland dedication. Furthermore, only developable portions of land that are subject to an application should be included in the lands considered for parkland dedication. In other words, non -developable lands should be netted out of the area that is subject to the parkland dedication calculation. Response: The City recognizes that a complete park and open space system is made up of a wide variety of types of land and open space that are beyond the definitions of Local Park. The City will continue the existing practice of working with developers in transferring lands to public parks and open spaces to meet the needs of the wider community, ensure environmental protection and support a connecting system of corridors that support biodiversity. On rare occasions, and only on case-by-case basis, this may lead to credit toward parkland dedication being met partially or fully by the dedication of lands that are not `Local Parks'. However, the focus of the By -Law and Policy is to ensure that local parks are provided to meet the needs of growing communities and so generally speaking, only land that can effectively meet the demands of a local park will be considered for parkland dedication. This is aligned with past practice and practices across Ontario municipalities. Park dedication requirements will continue to be calculated based on the developable area of subdivisions (i.e. excluding the natural heritage system). 11. We understand that the City is proposing to prepare the second component of its parkland strategy, to be entitled "Places", after the parkland dedication by-law has been passed. We also understand that Places will identify the amount and general location for future parkland acquisition. As you know, the parkland dedication by-law is now appealable, given recent amendments to the Planning Act, which amendments also require that the parkland dedication by-law be supported by a parkland strategy. These amendments to the Planning Act place the parkland dedication regime under higher scrutiny than previously and suggest that a heighted degree of justification is required in support of a municipality's parkland acquisition program. Accordingly, it is imperative that the Places plan be fully completed in advance of the passing of the parkland dedication by-law. Places will justify the by-law, and at the same time, the by-law will implement Places. Response: The Planning Act requires that the City develop, engage and consult on and pass a "Parks Plan" to support the By -Law. "Spaces" forms the City's parks plan. Contrary to the comment provided, Spaces dictates the amount and general location of future parkland needs. "Places" will focus on the development of these spaces to meet community need, but will not address the location, size or form of these spaces. Spaces forms the City's "Parks Plan" as required under the Planning Act. Page 4 of 6 Page 252 of 317 12. Furthermore, given the need to fully ground the parkland acquisition program in the City's comprehensive parkland acquisition strategy, we would highly recommend that the strategy and resulting by-law emulate the development charges process. More specifically: a) Population and employment forecasts and land use designations should be applied to generate the future amount of parkland required. Response This is addressed within Spaces and relies on existing growth estimates and current census data. It will be updated with further growth estimate updates and future census data as needed. b) Reserve funds should be accounted for. Response As is existing practice, these are accounted for and reported on annually through the City's public budget process. Future investment of the parkland reserve will be directed by Spaces and will be subject to full public transparency. The City will meet its reporting obligations under section 42(17) of the Planning Act and O.Reg. 509/20. c) Future development should not have to subsidize (increase) parkland per person for existing residents/uses. Response Agreed; Spaces and the updated By -Law and Policy are forward looking documents and do not seek to address any perceived or real past deficiency in parkland. It uses current deficiencies to target areas of highest need and seeks to maintain the existing City-wide average provision within new developments. The City has introduced a limit to ensure that when taking land, the existing City-wide average provision will not be exceeded. d) Secondary plans that clearly indicate the areas designated for parkland development should be expressly accounted for in the parkland acquisition strategy. Response Secondary plans are relied on to inform parkland acquisitions. However, it is understood that secondary plans are indicative rather than definitive and subject to review and change as development proposals are initiated. e) For intensification, the City should identify specific lands needs and locations for parkland acquisition. Response Agreed; Work following the approval of Spaces will seek to develop property specific evaluation criteria to identify specific properties and areas that could, if available, serve the highest value to meeting future parkland needs. It should be noted that this work must occur outside of the public forum as to not compromise the City's ability to acquire lands at fair market values. Page 5 of 6 Page 253 of 317 f) The land or cash -in -lieu thereof that is acquired for new development should be fixed according to the above calculation. Response The City has proposed a fixed rate for cash -in -lieu of park land on a per unit basis. Park land and cash -in -lieu of park land requirements are directly linked to the provision metrics and community objectives the City establishes in Spaces. Sincerely, Mark Paris, O.A.L.A. (519) 741-2600 ext 4397 mark. parrisa-kitchener.ca cc: Tim Donegani, Senior Planner, City of Kitchener Mike Seiling, Director of Building / Chief Building Official, City of Kitchener Natalie Goss, Manager of Policy and Research, City of Kitchener Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, City of Kitchener Niall Lobley, Director of Parks and Cemeteries, City of Kitchener Page 6 of 6 Page 254 of 317 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 8, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Tim Donegani, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7067 WARD(S) INVOLVED: ALL DATE OF REPORT: May 27, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-281 SUBJECT: Growth Related Funding Tools — Cumulative Impact Assessment RECOMMENDATION: That Report DSD -2022-281 regarding Growth Related Funding Tools — Cumulative Impact Assessment, be received. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present Council with the findings of the Cumulative Impact Assessment prepared by N. Barry Lyon Consultants (NBLC) to inform Council's consideration of new or updated Development Charges, Park Dedication, Community Benefits Charges, and Inclusionary Zoning. • Key findings: o The NBLC report found that the funding tools in totality generally result in manageable impacts to proformas in the strong Downtown residential market, with more significant impacts on high-rise development in other locations in Kitchener. o The tools impact high rise and rental projects most significantly. o A transition period for new fees or policies is critical to mitigating impacts. o The recommended Development Charges and Parkland Dedication by-laws incorporate most of the Study's recommendations to mitigate impact on development proformas, risks to housing supply and associated upward pressure on housing prices. o In developing these tools, staff have sought to mitigate impacts on development proformas while providing for the infrastructure, parks and city services required to support vibrant complete communities. • Staff engaged members of the development industry in preparing this report • This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 255 of 317 BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of developing new or updated fees that support growth. Development Charges (DCs), Community Benefits Charges (CBCs), Park Dedication and Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) are all being considered in the next two years and have the possibility of impacting development trends and housing affordability. A new Development Charges By-law was considered by Council on May 30, 2022. Committee of Council will consider and discuss the "Spaces" component of Places and Spaces, a new parks and open space strategy for Kitchener together with a new Park Dedication By-law on June 8. Consideration of CBCs and IZ are in progress with updates to Council anticipated in 2023. To better understand the financial implications of the above-mentioned fees on development proformas, the City retained N. Barry Lyon Consultants (NBLC) Land Economists to analyse their cumulative impacts. REPORT: The NBLC report (Attachment A) uses an industry standard residual land value (RLV) approach to test likely impacts of fee and policy combinations on a set of prototypical proformas that vary in location and housing form. This approach and methodology includes the following important characteristics: • The costs of increased fees cannot easily be passed onto residents through higher prices because developers are already pricing units as high as the market will bear. • The model used in the analysis assumes that developer profits cannot be compressed. Without sufficient profit, developers will not be motivated to build, and banks will not provide financing. • Based on the above, it is concluded that increased fees and charges will put downward pressure on land value. • If land value is compressed too much, a residential redevelopment project cannot displace the existing land use and will not proceed. • Reducing housing supply can put upward pressure on housing prices. • This analysis does not capture all possible developer motivations. Long-term landowners or those that self -finance may continue to develop despite challenges to the prototypical proformas. Key findings of the report are: • The proposed DC rates will have a relatively small impact on project viability. • Although the City has yet to determine if it will implement CBCs, a 4% of land value charge (the maximum permitted in legislation) would have relatively small impacts on project viability. • Generally, high-rise apartments, rental projects, and areas outside of Downtown are expected to be most impacted by the proposed fees. • The overall impact of the proposed Park Dedication By -Law could potentially push down land values by 11% in the Downtown example and 35% in central neighbourhoods. Impacts would be much more significant without the proposed $11,862 per unit cap. This fee increase is a one-time adjustment to address a 12 - year park dedication value stagnation. • An example Inclusionary Zoning policy that requires 5% of units to be affordable could further depress land values by 16% at the Downtown test site and by half in central neighbourhoods. Page 256 of 317 • The cumulative impacts of all new policies could impact land values by 25%-90% depending on location and built form. • A transition period to the new fee/policy regime is crucial to mitigating impacts to project viability. • Fees should be tailored to support higher density development in weaker market areas. • Park dedication impacts could be mitigated through site specific appraisals, area - specific rates, on and offsite land dedication, and a graduated park dedication cap. • The impact of inclusionary zoning could be mitigated through reduced affordability requirements in weaker markets and offsets such as increases in height and density permissions, reduced parking requirements, fee waivers and/or grants. • All fees and policies should be reviewed regularly to respond to market conditions. Staff have reviewed and considered the NBLC report and provide the following additional context for Council's consideration: • The proposed DC by-law shapes incentives to help support development in Central Neighbourhoods. • The current draft Park Dedication By -Law responds to the recommendations by: o Capping CIL of park dedication at a maximum of $11,862 per unit o Providing a transition for existing development applications o Providing for on and offsite land dedication and site specific appraisals • Reductions for rental buildings, and area -specific rates are not included in the draft by-law (due to limited comparable data for high density sites outside Downtown) • Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) will have the greatest impact on proformas and will be the last tool to be introduced, which will potentially be challenging to implement in all areas except for Downtown in the short and medium term. However, it should be noted that the City of Kitchener has used other policy support tools to advance supportive and affordable housing in these areas. • Kitchener should have reasonable expectations regarding the amount of affordable units that IZ can deliver. Continued investment by all levels of government in affordable housing is required to achieve broad affordable housing objectives. • Many potential offsets to achieve IZ in weaker markets either have financial implications to the tax base, or may not have significant value for developers. • The potential implications of new and updated growth -related fees on development, including in Major Transit Station Areas east of Downtown, will be closely monitored to understand whether additional mitigation measures are needed. Any mitigation measures may require future Council direction. At this time it is unclear if impacts forecasted will materialize and whether further mitigation measures are warranted. • Concerns remain with the premise that increased fees will put downward pressure on land rather than upward pressure on unit prices and rents. • The NBLC report uses theoretical projects, based on prototypes, and the results are very sensitive to a set of assumptions. It is therefore not a good predictor of actual land transaction prices. It does however remain a valuable way to evaluate the potential impact of new fees and policies. • The residual land values in the report are higher than observed actual transactions and listings. This would imply a greater capacity for the development industry to absorb additional fees than suggested by the NBLC report, especially Downtown. Page 257 of 317 • There is less certainty regarding valuation of high-density development outside of Downtown with limited comparable data to rely on. Conclusion Increasing hard costs and the potential for a slow down in unit production or decrease in unit prices are expected to put pressure on development proformas in the near term. While comparable with other municipalities, the City's proposed fee regime may challenge high and medium density development, particularly outside of the Downtown market. This requires a balanced consideration of DCs, CBCs, Cash -in -lieu of Parkland and IZ on one hand, and development viability and the resultant housing supply and overall affordability on the other. Higher taxes could provide some relief by shifting costs from developers to the existing tax base and would go against the principle of growth paying for growth. The proposed Park Dedication and Development Charges By -Laws have incorporated many of the NBLC study's recommendations to mitigate impacts on developer proformas, while providing services, infrastructure and parkland needed for thriving and complete communities. Market realities will challenge the ability to achieve a significant number of affordable units through Inclusionary Zoning in the medium term, especially outside of the Downtown. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications to this report. This report has been used to inform the development of updates to Kitchener's DC and, Park Dedication By-laws and will be used to inform any Community Benefits Charges and IZ program in the future. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. CONSULT - Staff and NBLC presented the report findings to the Waterloo Region Homebuilders' Kitchener Development Liaison Committee (KDLC), Momentum and IN8 developments in May 2022. Key comments from these groups are: • A transition period to the new fee regime is critical. • The vast majority of developers said that increased fees would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher unit prices and rents. • Medium density development will be further challenged by the proposed fees. • Profits cannot be compressed. As such, any fee increase may be passed on, in whole or in part to purchasers/renters. • Developers may respond by delaying projects, building smaller units in taller buildings and/or seek lower architectural design. • The housing market has weakened in the last 30 days making the introduction of fees more challenging, More details of these meetings are included in Attachment B. Page 258 of 317 PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter REVIEWED BY: Brian Bennett, Manager of Business Development Danielle Sbeiti, Manager of Realty Services Mark Parris, Landscape Architect, Parks & Cemeteries Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy and Research Niall Lobley, Director of Parks and Cemeteries Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning and Reporting APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — NBLC Report - Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development — Evaluation of Potential Impacts (May 2022) Attachment B — Development industry feedback on NBLC report Page 259 of 317 Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development Evaluation of Potential Impacts City of Kitchener May 2022 nb1c Trusted advisors since 1976. City of Kitchener Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development Evaluation of Potential Impacts Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts i City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 261 of 317 The conclusions contained in this report have been prepared based on both primary - • ' • • and secondary data sources. NBLC makes every effort to ensure the data is correct but cannot guarantee its accuracy. It is also important to note that it is not possible Executive Summary...................................................................................i to fully document all factors or account for all changes that may occur in the future and influence the viability of any development. NBLC, therefore, assumes no 1.0 Introduction......................................................................................1 responsibility for losses sustained as a result of implementing any recommendation 2.0 Residential Market Context..............................................................2 provided in this report. 3.0 Land Economics Approach..............................................................9 This report has been prepared solely for the purposes outlined herein and is not to 4.0 Methodology12 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""' be relied upon, or used for any other purposes, or by any other party without the prior written authorization from N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited. 5.0 Impacts on High -Density Residential Development .......................20 6.0 Conclusions....................................................................................31 7.0 Appendix A - Model Inputs...........................................................32 8.0 Appendix B - Impact Analysis Model Results...............................34 Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts i City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 261 of 317 Executive Summary N. Barry Lyon Consultants has been retained by the City of Kitchener to undertake an evaluation of impacts from potential policy changes that have the potential to influence the financial viability of new residential development in the City. The policies considered in this analysis include: • A new Community Benefits Charge (CBC) equivalent to four percent of land value, replacing the negotiated process commonly referred to as a "Section 37 Agreement"; New City of Kitchener Development Charge rates (Region of Waterloo Development Charges remain unchanged); • A Cash -in -Lieu of parkland dedication policy (CIL) which has been updated to reflect a new city-wide appraisal of development land values and includes a capped payment for high-density built forms; and, • A mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) policy which would require that five percent of development floor area be sold or rented at below market rates. Key to the methodology used in this work is the understanding that housing prices are established by the characteristics of supply and demand, with developers charging what the market is willing and able to pay. If the cost of producing a housing unit increases, developers cannot simply increase pricing if buyers are unwilling or unable to pay a higher price. Instead, developers will discount the price they are willing to pay to acquire land as a means of compensating for these increased costs. However, if residential land values are depressed too much, the supply of available residential land could be impacted. This could bring about unintended consequences affecting a range of municipal policy objectives and broader housing affordability. For some developers who already own land, severe impacts could make their projects infeasible in the near term. Our approach in this study examines this relationship between policies which increase the cost of development or reduce project revenue (in the case of IZ) and the residual land value supported by a residential development. The modelling seeks to evaluate how much land values would be impacted, and at which point the incentive to redevelop land might be discouraged. To do this, we examine ten prototypical developments across the City. We model these test sites under various policy scenarios to estimate the maximum price a developer could pay for land (referred to as the residual land value) if they are to achieve an acceptable profit. These land values are then compared to the value of competitive land uses in each market location (e.g., retail, office, low-density housing, etc.). Where the policy scenario supports a land value near or below that of the existing uses, we can conclude that the motivation to redevelop the site is diminished and the proposed fees and charges would adversely impact reinvestment for residential uses. We also consider the interim impacts of potential fee increases — reviewing the dynamics of recently launched development projects and considering the special impacts that both purchasers and developers may face in adjusting to the cost increase while moving through the development process. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts i City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 262 of 317 The following are our central findings in this analysis: The proposed development charge rates are unlikely to have a meaningful impact on the feasibility of development because the proposed rate increase is very small. The proposed rates would add between $1,307 to $1,917 per unit, representing less than a one percent increase to the average cost of an apartment unit as tested in this analysis. The proposed CBC would have a slightly greater but still relatively insignificant impact on development viability. In the strongest market locations, our testing indicates that the charge would equate to $3,600 per unit. However, the charge would be much smaller in weaker market areas as they support lower land values. Should the City seek to standardize the rate on a per unit basis by market area or product type, the City should consider the cumulative impact of other policies on land values when setting the rate to ensure it is appropriately calibrated, lest developers may appeal the charge and create an administrative burden and unnecessary cost for the City. The proposed CIL of parkland rates reflect a new city-wide appraisal of development land values. These land values are significantly greater than those used in the current policy and so the proposed policy includes a per unit cap of $12,000 to attenuate some of this added cost burden. If not for the cap the viability of high-density development forms would be significantly impacted. We find that with the cap applied, the policy would erode residual land values by 11% to 35% in the Downtown and Central Neighbourhood High Rise Residential test sites respectively, with greater impacts on high density test cases within weaker submarkets. However, the development context in these weaker submarkets and other provisions in the design of the policy suggest developers will have greater opportunity to alleviate this impact through the conveyance of land (either on-site or off-site), or the use of site-specific appraisals reflect local market nuance. The impact of the proposed Inclusionary Zoning policy is expected to be more significant in areas of weaker demand given theses areas support lower residual land values that are more easily eroded by the loss of revenue that the IZ policy creates. In the Downtown High Rise test site, we see residual land values eroded by about 16%, while the impact at the Central Neighbourhood test site would be in the order of 50%. The Inclusionary Zoning policy approach tested in this analysis creates relatively blunt impacts to land value because it does not include a nuanced implementation strategy with offsetting measures. So. developers who have not yet acquired land would need to reduce their bid price for land if they are to maintain their risk adjusted return. However, it is not clear whether landowners will adjust their asking price in the near term to accommodate this policy. Further, developers who have already purchased land will seek to entitle their properties in advance of the policy to circumvent it. In either case the testing highlights potential issues with the effectiveness of a blunt policy and highlights the need for offsetting measures to mitigate against unintended consequences. While the impacts of individual policies range from inconsequential to significant, various combinations of the above policies will invariably magnify the financial impact of these tools. The cumulative impact of the policies considered will be most acute for high-density projects in weaker market areas. In this analysis, we consider the Downtown market area to have the most demand and subsequently highest pricing for condominium apartments. This pricing equates to higher residual land values which provide some buffer against new development costs. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts ii City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 263 of 317 However, the weaker market areas where we tested high-density apartments — Central Neighbourhood, Fairway MTSA, and Southwest Kitchener — do not support prices which drive high land values. To the extent that the policies add costs or reduce revenues, and are not accompanied by offsetting measures, there is less buffer before a developer can no longer compete to acquire land, or before the project is made financially unviable. This market nuance suggests that the City should take the latitude afforded to it in legislation to design the IZ, CBC, and CII, of parkland policies to mitigate the adverse impacts that one -size -fits -all policies can have on diverse submarkets. Throughout this study, we assume that developers are more likely to deliver ownership housing as it provides greater financial returns than rental, at least with a forward-looking perspective and the investment horizon considered herein. We have however prepared one iteration of the model under rental tenure to illustrate how the policies can impact the economics of this tenure. Using the strongest market location with the highest achievable rents, we find that the base case scenario would be challenged financially from an income capitalization approach before new policies are applied. Subsequent scenarios where we add the cost of new policies serve only to worsen the results. These results reflect the challenging dynamics facing the delivery of purpose-built rental housing. hr simple terms, the achievable revenue for ownership housing exceeds that of rental. The City could consider structuring new policies in a manner that helps encourage rental housing if that is a policy priority. Overall, the pressure to increase the municipal fees facing new residential development projects comes at a time when the industry is also facing significant increases in hard construction costs. In addition, rising interest rates and inflationary pressures have the potential to undermine demand and pricing. The testing in this analysis illustrates that the cumulative impact of the proposed municipal fees has the potential to dampen development interest in high-density residential development across the City. The effects, however, will vary depending on the market and specific land economics associated with a particular site. For these reasons, the municipality should consider approaches to mitigate the significant impacts that these policy changes might have. This could include a phase- in period that could adjust to reflect economic conditions, such as interest rates, as well as offsetting measures for inclusionary zoning. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts iii City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 264 of 317 1.0 Introduction The City of Kitchener (`the City') has retained N. Barry Lyon Consultants The purpose of this study is to examine the possible impacts that these (`NBLC') to assess the potential impacts to residential development that policy changes and fee increases could have on high-density residential may result from a range of proposed policy changes and fee increases that development. We address these issues by evaluating how the policy are currently under consideration. changes and fee increases would impact the feasibility of ten prototypical production cost of housing, albeit through a loss of development revenue. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 1 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 265 of 317 high-density residential developments throughout various submarkets in The City is currently in the process updating its Development Charges Kitchener. Through an understanding of the subtleties between various (DCs) in accordance with recent changes made to the enabling legislation. markets in the city, as well as an understanding of the economics of Concurrently, the City is evaluating the introduction of a Community development, we examine how these changes could impact project Benefits Charge (`CBC'), and an update to its Cash -in -Lieu of Parkland viability not just at the ten representative test sites, but across the broader Dedication (`CIL') by-law, also following recent changes to provincial Kitchener marketplace. legislation. Each of these initiatives are intended to support an increase in municipal revenue to support infrastructure investments, but they also represent an increase to the production costs of housing. The City of Kitchener, in conjunction with the Region of Waterloo, is also considering an Inclusionary Zoning by-law which would similarly impact the production cost of housing, albeit through a loss of development revenue. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 1 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 265 of 317 2.0 Residential Market Context The following section provides a review of Kitchener's residential market context, focusing specifically on the high-density market. This commentary has been informed by Statistics Canada and CMHC data. NBLC has also completed primary surveys of the new high-rise marketplace and the resale condominium apartment marketplace. The full results from these surveys have been attached in the Appendix. Population Growth Driving Residential Demand Key to Kitchener's growing levels of residential demand has been steady population growth over the past decade. Between 2011 and 2021, the City of Kitchener grew by 17% (+37,732 persons) accounting for nearly half (47%) of the net population growth in KCW'. Adding to this, Kitchener's pace of population growth has accelerated in recent years, adding Table 1 approximately 23,700 persons between 2016 and 2021, compared to only 14,100 persons during the previous five-year period. Driving this accelerating population growth has been an increased number of new immigrants settling in KCW, with this level having almost tripled in the past five years (Figure 1). Increased federal immigration targets will only further bolster the level of growth due to immigration in the coming years for Kitchener. Similarly, non -permanent residents (e.g., international students) were a significant contributor to KCW's population growth over the past five years, and while this component of population growth declined dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic, this trend is expected to be entirely temporary as many parts of the world emerge from pandemic -induced travel restrictions. Population Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo CMA, 2011 Year to 2021 Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge Rural Municipalities' CMA 2011 219,153 98,780 126,748 51,702 496,383 2016 233,222 104,986 129,920 55,766 523,894 2021 256,885 121,436 138,479 59,047 575,847 Total Growth (2011 to 2021) 37,732 22,656 11,731 7,345 79,464 % Growth (2011 to 2021) 17% 23% 9% 14% 16% Share of Growth (2011 to 2021) 47% 29% 15% 9% 100% 1=Consists of Wilmot, Woolwich, and North Dumfries Township Source: Statistics Canada ' KCW consists of the Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo Census Metropolitan Area as defined by Statistics Canada Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development — Evaluation of Potential Impacts 2 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 266 of 317 Figure 1 — Components of Population Change, Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo CMA 7,000 6,000 5,000 r 0 4,000 3,000 d am 2,000 V v 1,000 z 0 -1,00(7 -2,000 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O Co. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N F' F-' F-' N NF-' F-' H F-' N N N W A In a, 11 m Lo O F-+ N w A LI M .1 cc W O Yr Source: Statistics Canada Affordability Underpins Growth in High -Density Demand Like much of southwestern Ontario, Kitchener has seen a surge in low-rise pricing in recent years as new home supply has not been able to keep pace with the growing demand. The average absorbed price of a new single/semi-detached home in Kitchener reached $792,700 in 2021, up 68% from just five years earlier. Our research suggests that this price has only continued to escalate in 2022, with the average price for an available single/semi-detached home reaching approximately $940,000 as of March 20222 2 Altus Data Studio Natural Immigration Internal Migration Non -Permanent As local incomes have grown at a much more modest pace, this low-rise pricing growth has shifted residential demand towards more affordable housing typologies, specifically apartments. Over the past five years, apartment units have accounted for 62% of Kitchener's total housing starts. This contrasts with the previous five years where apartments only accounted for 43% of total housing starts and in even more stark contrast to 2001 to 2011 when apartments only accounted for 17% of total housing starts. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development — Evaluation of Potential Impacts 3 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 267 of 317 Figure 2—Average Absorbed Single/Semi-Detached Price, Kitchener $900,0oo $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 — $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 ti ry m a �n �n n w M o .ti ry m't 'n W r w m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Source: CMHC Figure 3 — Average Annual Apartment Starts by Tenure, City of Kitchener 900 800 760 600 506 406 300 200 160 W_ 0 W I k 2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 2617-2021 ■ Rental ■ Condominium Source: CMHC Rental Demand Continues to Grow In recent years, the City of Kitchener has seen a surge in rental housing demand driven by two key factors: • Deteriorating affordability of ownership housing; and, Expanded enrollment at KCW's post -secondary institutions, specifically international student enrolment. Owing to this growth in demand, there has been a surge in rental apartment development. Over the past five years, there has been an average of 519 rental apartment starts in Kitchener annually. This is up 65% from the previous five-year period. Even more, this is triple the average annual rate from a decade ago. This development has been scattered throughout the City, although the largest concentration is located in Kitchener -Central and Kitchener South -East which respectively account for 36% and 28% of the City's total rental apartment starts over the past five years. Notwithstanding the above -noted increase, this supply of new purpose- built rental apartment units has still been inadequate to meet the growing level of rental housing demand. Instead, condominium apartments units purchased by investors have become an important rental apartment product in KCW. As of October 2021, CMHC reported that 33% of condominium apartment units in KCW were being used as rental units on the secondary rental market, up from just 23% six years earlier. Moreover, Table 2 shows that the supply of condominium rental units has seen larger net growth over the past six years than owner -occupied condominium units. This aligns with trends from recent condominium project launches in KCW, where investors make up an ever-increasing share of purchasers. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 4 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 268 of 317 Table 2 Finally, these rental market conditions have led to higher market rents across the entire KCW region. Over the past five years, average CMHC rents in new purpose-built rental apartments (i.e., buildings completed from 2000 onward) have increased by 5.4% annually across the entire region. Additionally, average rents in privately leased condominium apartment units have increased by 8.3% annually. This growth is likely to continue given the prevailing rental market trends in the region (i.e., surging rental demand and limited supply). Condominium Apartment Pricing Has Seen Substantial Growth With residential demand shifting towards high-density housing, condominium apartment pricing in KCW has grown over the past five years. As shown in Figure 4, new high-rise pricing growth remained modest until about 2020, at which time it began to record sizable gains. Most notably, TEK Towers, which opened in Downtown Kitchener in March 2022, had an average opening index price of $1,163 psf. This was the fast project in the region to surpass the $1,000 psf threshold. The significantly higher pricing appears to be aligned to market demand as this project sold 455 units in its first month of sales alone. This pricing appreciation is also evident in the resale apartment market, as shown in Table 3. Over the past year alone, resale pricing has increased between 25% and 36%, depending on the submarket. Given prevailing market conditions, this growth is not at all surprising and we expect pricing levels to continue to appreciate over the short-term, although at a more modest pace than what has occurred in the past year. Table 3 Benchmark 2012 to Apartment Resale 2022 Pricing r2015Condominium Units Rental Non -Rental %of Units as Rental Kitchener West AS 2,053 6,772 23% $156,200 2,599 6,964 27% 2017 3,092 7,108 30% 2018 3,101 7,481 29% 2019 3,610 8,453 30% 2020 3,902 8,456 32% 2021 4,372 8,947 33% Increase: 2,319 2,175 - ETolal Ag. Annual: 387 363 $236,600 ce: CMHC $310,500 March 2019 $256,400 Finally, these rental market conditions have led to higher market rents across the entire KCW region. Over the past five years, average CMHC rents in new purpose-built rental apartments (i.e., buildings completed from 2000 onward) have increased by 5.4% annually across the entire region. Additionally, average rents in privately leased condominium apartment units have increased by 8.3% annually. This growth is likely to continue given the prevailing rental market trends in the region (i.e., surging rental demand and limited supply). Condominium Apartment Pricing Has Seen Substantial Growth With residential demand shifting towards high-density housing, condominium apartment pricing in KCW has grown over the past five years. As shown in Figure 4, new high-rise pricing growth remained modest until about 2020, at which time it began to record sizable gains. Most notably, TEK Towers, which opened in Downtown Kitchener in March 2022, had an average opening index price of $1,163 psf. This was the fast project in the region to surpass the $1,000 psf threshold. The significantly higher pricing appears to be aligned to market demand as this project sold 455 units in its first month of sales alone. This pricing appreciation is also evident in the resale apartment market, as shown in Table 3. Over the past year alone, resale pricing has increased between 25% and 36%, depending on the submarket. Given prevailing market conditions, this growth is not at all surprising and we expect pricing levels to continue to appreciate over the short-term, although at a more modest pace than what has occurred in the past year. Table 3 Benchmark 2012 to Apartment Resale 2022 Pricing Date Kitchener East Kitchener West AS Waterloo East Waterloo West March 2012 $156,200 $151,200 $190,600 $207,300 March 2013 $162,800 $158,100 $203,400 $221,800 March 2014 $149,900 $149,100 $195,900 $220,700 March 2015 $173,900 $169,600 $214,300 $226,400 March 2016 1 $176,000 $171,000 $216,900 1 $239,500 March 2017 $204,400 $201,200 $241,200 $265,200 March 2018 $238,500 $236,600 $276,900 $310,500 March 2019 $256,400 $264,900 $296,600 $341,400 March 2020 $331,000 $331,000 $335,300 $356,200 March 2021 $357,700 $394,900 $378,100 $400,100 March 2022 $487,800 $531,800 $515,000 $501,000 1 -Year Growth 36% 35% 36% 25% 3 -Year Growth 90% 101% 74% 47% Source: Kitchener -Waterloo Realtors Association Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 5 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 269 of 317 Figure 4 – Average Opening High -Rise Index Price by Opening Date, KCW (Bubble size represents the number of units) $1,350 $1,200 $1,050 $900 tL $750 tLo c $600 m a w $450 I ^ O $300 as 7 Q $150 $D Nov 2013 Source: Altus Data Studio 0 e 0 0 rRD 0 A - . 0 �_J — 0 C� O Kitchener O Waterloo OCambridge Dec 2014 Jan 2016 Mar 2017 Apr 2018 May 2019 Jun 2020 Jul 2021 Aug 2022 Opening Date Land Values Have Also Seen Sizable Pricing Growth With increased demand and pricing, high-density residential land values have also increased significantly in recent years. Table 4 provides summary data regarding high-density residential land sales from KCW. On a per unit basis, land values over the past two years are up significantly from previous years, reaching approximately $30,000 per unit. As recently as 2019, land sales were transacting for approximately $16,000. As project statistics can change throughout the pre -development stage of a project, this data should be considered order -of -magnitude and primarily reflective of broader trends in the land market. Table 4 Density Residential Land Sales KCW, 2016 to 2021 Price per Unit Year Transactions Buildable 2016 21 $16,600 2017 31 $11,800 2018 26 $12,800 2019 26 $16,100 2020 21 $34,200 2021 1 42 1 $29,600 Note: Price per unit buildable is based only on those transactions with an associated development application. Non -market sales have been excluded Source: Altus Data Studio Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development – Evaluation of Potential Impacts 6 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 270 of 317 Construction Costs Are Escalating Rapidly Disruptions to global supply chains and a shortage of skilled labour have both impacted residential construction costs, causing significant levels of inflation. While accurate time -series construction cost data is not readily available specifically for the KCW marketplace, it is our understanding that costing trends have largely followed those seen in the Greater Toronto Area (`GTA'). Statistics Canada's Building Construction Price Index (`BCPI') for the GTA shows that between Q1-2020 and Q42022, residential construction costs increased by 22% for high-rise apartments (five -or -more storeys) and by 38% for low-rise apartments (less than five -storeys). Moreover, much of this growth has come in the past year alone — +18% and +28%, respectively. Before this period of rapid escalation, construction costs typically were more modest, growing by about 3% to 5% annually. Historically, developers have been able to absorb increased construction costs as pricing was growing at a more substantial margin. However, given the recent pace of construction cost escalation, this buffer may be eroding. If this trend continues, it could put significant pressure on the development industry, substantially reducing a project's margin for error. Figure 5 — High -Density Residential Construction Cost Growth, GTA 170 v 160 w 150 a 0 140 2 V 130 0 U 120 m 110 loo Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 pit] ►telr51:i10C�100�10%I Five -0r -More Storeys -<Five-Storeys Source: Statistics Canada Building Construction Price Index Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development — Evaluation of Potential Impacts 7 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 271 of 317 Threats on the Horizon Since 2001, the KCW housing market has experienced a sustained period of price growth. Driven largely by low interest rates, strong immigration and municipal investment in public infrastructure, the City has become an appealing destination in which to both live and work. However, the pace of cost inflation has been substantial since the beginning of the pandemic. As supply chain interference has impacted the availability and price of most consumer goods, it has also increased the cost of construction and access to skilled labour. These costs have risen dramatically over the past 24 months, as noted above, and are predicted to continue throughout 2022 and possibly beyond. At the same time, the Bank of Canada has recently increased its benchmark interest rate and has signalled its intention to raise this rate several more times throughout 2022, should inflation not subside. This should drive commercial lending rates higher which will in tum increase construction financing costs. Additionally, a higher cost of borrowing is very likely to mean new limits on consumer's access to money, affecting demand and the ability for developers to increase residential pricing in in the future. Figure 6 — BoC Target Overnight Rate 2.0% 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% ooh qac gar` �,�c qac qac ,ac ,ac Source: Bank of Canada These forecasted construction cost increases combined with increasing cost of borrowing could conspire to erode the feasibility of development in some areas of the City due to a limited ability for housing prices to offset rising development costs. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development — Evaluation of Potential Impacts 8 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 272 of 317 3.0 Land Economics Approach It is a common misconception that the cost of constructing new housing determines the price at which that housing can be sold and that any new or increased costs — including those incurred due to government policies — can be directly `passed on' to end users through higher sale prices or lease rates. Though interrelated, the market dynamics which determine the cost of construction, and the sale price of housing is far more nuanced and complex. This understanding informs the approach in which impacts are measured in this analysis. Pricing is Driven by Market Supply / Demand In an efficient market with strong competition, developers and/or landowners will charge purchasers or renters the maximum price that the market will bear at any given time. Competitive markets establish pricing by the characteristics of supply and demand, underpinned by the principle of the `willing buyer and seller'. This price is irrespective of the production cost of housing. In any real estate market, it is demand from consumers relative to the supply of housing which determines the price of housing. For example, if two identical high-density projects were situated adjacent to one another, buyers would view these homes as substitutes. In this situation, buyers would value both projects equally and pricing would be comparable at each project. However, if one of these projects was situated on a parcel of land that required expensive environmental remediation, the developer could not increase sale prices equivalent to the cost of remediation, as buyers would simply choose the identical and lower priced project adjacent to it. To the buyer, there is no added value to justify additional costs for a similar quality unit and the developer could not charge more for the unit. Therefore it is common practice for developers and landowners to seek an opinion with respect to the quality of the soil (and other matters throughout due diligence) prior to purchasing land. If there is evidence of a soil/environmental issue, the developer will discount the value of the parcel by the cost of remedying the problem. The same principle applies to development fees. A purchaser would not pay more for a home simply because costs have increased. Rather, the development industry evaluates conditions of competitive supply and demand to set sales pricing. An exception to this is where a developer has already presold units but has not obtained building permits prior to development fees being increased. In these situations (subject to purchase and sale terms) the burden of the increased fees (or a portion of them) can be incurred by the homebuyer, in effect, increasing the price to the purchasers. Where the purchaser's exposure to rate increases are `capped' — a common approach to be discussed later in this report — the increase in fees is shared with the developer. Where some or all of this cost increase is absorbed by the developer, it would erode the developer's profit margin. Increased Housing Production Costs Primarily Impact Land Value Understanding that market pricing is largely set independently from costs, developers must seek to transfer any increase in costs elsewhere. Developers are unlikely to accept reduced profit expectations as they are investing their skill and equity with the expectation of a return. In a competitive market, developers must compete for land, capital, labour, and purchasers or renters. The effect of this competition is to place downward pressure on profit margins to the minimum amount feasible, lest the developer will be outbid for these scarce resources. The minimum risk adjusted return is set in large part by global capital markets and is largely beyond the control of any individual developer. If an acceptable profit Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 9 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 273 of 317 level can not be achieved, developers and financiers will choose to invest their capital elsewhere, be that a real estate development in another community or another investment vehicle altogether. hi a market that shows steady demand and pricing growth, such as KCW, it is possible that increased costs can be offset by price appreciation without impacting the viability of new development. However, in more stable markets, with return expectations and costs relatively fixed, the impact of any cost increase is largely compensated for with a reduction in land value. Figure 7 illustrates this, showing that if the total project revenue remains stable (as set by supply and demand conditions), any increase in soft costs (i.e. development fees) must be compensated for by an equal reduction in land value as hard costs and the developer's profit margin are both considered fixed. Inclusionary Zoning Impacts Land Values Like increased development costs, inclusionary zoning also impacts land values, although the mechanism is slightly different. Inclusionary zoning is not a direct cost of development, as it is not an additional fee imposed on a project. Instead, inclusionary zoning policies reduce a project's total revenue as a set number of units are no longer able to be priced at full market value. Meanwhile, the hard and soft costs associated with the development do not change, nor do the developer's profit expectations. In this scenario, where the costs and profit expectations remain fixed, land values must be reduced in order to compensate for the reduced revenue. This scenario is illustrated in Figure 8. Note, inclusionary zoning policies typically include offsetting measures to mitigate this impact as it could reduce the effectiveness of the policy and create unintended consequences. Figure 7 – The Impact of Increased Development Fees on Land Values TetaI Projeat Revenue I Profit Profit E.WArfum Prixr.etnm—Supply Margin Mmeln ma I—d radidma Hard Costs Hard Co., +gio Soh Costs seftCosts Land W.. Lend valve Existing Fees Increased Fees Figure 8 – The Impact of Inclusionary Zoning on Land Values M.A.—Tel.I R.v.nu. Typical M.rl.k Inclusiarv.ry U.I., D—I.p—t Devel.pmene Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development – Evaluation of Potential Impacts 10 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 274 of 317 Loss of Revenue due to rz I Sm of Mele[5upoM..d land Vel.. land ",_.......f.._.'.._. Gement tnrwidm! IZ R—...T.LI Valu. Inclusien.ry Zenine R.—. H..d H.d cast! Costs MarMet Kry Revenue Market R.... S.ft c.nd Sett cenb PmR! Profit M.rcin Mew. Typical M.rl.k Inclusiarv.ry U.I., D—I.p—t Devel.pmene Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development – Evaluation of Potential Impacts 10 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 274 of 317 The Impact on Affordability As discussed, the impact of these additional charges and fees does not linearly translate to increased costs for consumers. Instead, the cumulative impact of rising housing production costs will put downward pressure on land prices. However, if significant, this reduction in land prices can impact the supply of available and developable land, which in turn could impact housing prices by shifting supply and demand conditions. If the downward pressure on land values leads to a decline in land available for development, the supply of new housing will be reduced, which in turn could lead to increased pricing for both new and existing housing. Downward pressure on land value can impact the supply of developable land in several ways: • Existing landowners may be less likely to sell or redevelop a property, as the existing land use may provide equal or even greater value; • Project viability can be impacted as the costs of development may exceed local market pricing; and, • Other competitive uses such as office and retail uses may now be able to compete for properties. Any of these potential outcomes could discourage reinvestment, reducing the supply of new housing and putting upward pressure on housing prices — to the extent that the market will allow — ultimately reducing affordability. As supply is constrained, the market is either forced to pay more for housing or make other housing choices. This may be especially true in low -growth areas where financial margins are already very thin, but opportunities for lower cost housing are the greatest. These areas also benefit significantly from new investment in terms of community improvements. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 11 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 275 of 317 4.0 Methodology The following section summarizes the methodology employed to consider the potential impacts of new municipal fees and policy changes. Land Value as a Measure of Feasibility To evaluate the impact of new policies on real estate development, we examine the financial viability of different residential typologies in a range of markets across the city before and after the new policies are introduced. We employ a residual land value (`RLV') model that follows these core steps: • Develop a market rationale for the site that supports a certain form of development based on the local characteristics of supply and demand. This includes unit sizing, types, pricing, parking sales, and project sales pace. This analysis considers current conditions and future market factors. • Calculate the revenues that might accrue for the project given the defined market parameters. • Subtract from the revenues an estimate of all the costs associated with the development—both hard and soft costs. • Subtract the developer's required profit. This is assumed as a percentage of the project's total revenues. • The remaining value or `residual' is the value that the developer could pay for the land and achieve the profit they require to undertake the development. This model is repeated for each of the test sites using the appropriate local market inputs. The outputs of the model are then used to examine how a residential developer's budget for acquiring land would be impacted under various policy/fee environments. These land values are then compared to the value of alternative land uses that are prevalent in each local area. This includes uses such as retail, office, and lower -density residential uses. If the land value of the redevelopment scenario approaches or falls below the alternative use values, we assume that the viability of the project is in question. hi other words, an owner of a property would not be motivated to sell or redevelop the site, thereby reducing the supply of developable land. Based on this analysis, we can understand the market areas or building forms that show evidence of weak viability under the various policy/fee environments. These will be areas where we would expect to see development interest weaken or be delayed until the market can support higher sales pricing or rents. Further, this analysis allows us to assess the magnitude of land value change that would result in the instance of policy change. Significant changes to land value could impact the availability of land for redevelopment, the production of housing, and other negative externalities or unintended consequences. Figure 9 Project Revenue - Project Costs - Developer Profit = Land Value Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development — Evaluation of Potential Impacts 12 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 276 of 317 Establishing Comparative Land Values To establish the benchmark where landowners become less motivated to redevelop their property for higher density housing, we estimate the value of typical land uses in each of the test site's market areas to approximate how much a developer would need to pay to acquire a property for development. Where a developer would assemble multiple residential properties, we consider the price and site area of recent comparable transactions to determine the number of properties the developer would need to acquire and the value of those properties under as -is, where -is conditions. We then add a 30 percent premium to acknowledge that incumbent homeowners would need to be incentivized to sell their property for redevelopment. For income producing properties, we use an income capitalization method to approximate the value of the property under as -is, where is conditions. We then add a ten percent premium to this market value to again acknowledge that the landowner requires an incentive to sell the property if it is to be developed to its highest and best use. In both instances, this value inclusive of the premium establishes a `threshold' value for each of these representative land uses that mustbe exceed by the project's residual land value if it is to be considered financially viable. This study is positioned from the perspective of a developer who will purchase land at market values and develop within a reasonable time frame. The analysis can not capture the motivations of every landowner or developer when choosing whether to redevelop a given parcel and it is not an exhaustive comparison to the value of every potential development site in a market area. The comparison of residual land values to the acquisition price of representative properties is simply a high-level benchmarking exercise to help illustrate where there may be a risk to the economic viability of new residential development generally. The reality is that conditions for development and the motivations of landowners and developers will vary within submarkets and across the city and region more generally. For example, a recent trend is for shopping centre owners to intensify their sites with new rental housing. For many long-term owners, the initial acquisition cost has been capitalized through the existing retail use. This allows the developer to input little to no land cost, improving the economics of the project and affording the developer greater latitude to rationalize the investment. Similarly, a developer who may have purchased land in a high -demand market several years ago and is only now moving forward with development may have a buffer against higher construction costs (including municipal fees) as they have purchased or `banked' the land at values much lower than current market values. Conversely, developers who have recently purchased land at market values, particularly those without prior knowledge of the magnitude of costs increases through inflation or new government policies, will have little financial buffer to maintain project viability. These developers may cancel or delay development until the sales prices orrents increase enough to offset the cost of the policies. In general, we can expect the financial viability of projects to be negatively impacted whenever development costs increase at a greater pace than revenues, potential to the extent that the investment in delayed or abandoned completely. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 13 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 277 of 317 4.1 Site Selection & Market Assumptions This analysis seeks to evaluate how different types of residential development across different market areas may be impacted by the proposed policies. As such, we have modelled ten prototypical development concepts across four market areas, herein referred to as test sites. These test sites were developed collaboratively with City staff and are intended to be representative of typical development conditions in each of the market areas. They capture a range of residential projects that are currently occurring or are anticipated to occur in the city. The four market areas consist of Downtown, Central Neighbourhoods, Old Suburban Neighbourhoods, and Greenfield Development in Southwest Kitchener. Note that the Greenfield Development market area does not include a comparison of residual land values to the acquisition price of properties under existing uses as the greenfield sites are properties which have not yet been intensively developed. These properties are typically natural areas or agricultural properties, both of which command very low prices relative to most any other land use. The development typologies evaluated include high-density residential apartments, four -storey residential apartments, and stacked townhouses. Single -detached, semi-detached, and traditional townhomes were not evaluated in this analysis as their pricing characteristics are highly dependent on the unique attributes of each property (quality of finishes, lot area and adjacencies, school catchment area, etc.). This variation makes it exceedingly difficult to discern the impact individual policies may have on the financial viability of these product types. Moreover, three of the four policies tested in this analysis (IZ, CBCs, and CII, of Parkland) would not apply in the context of low-density development. NBLC has undertaken market research to establish revenue and other market inputs in the model. The market inputs in addition to all other site- specific model inputs are shown in Appendix A — Model Inputs. 4.2 Proposed Policy and Fee Changes The following section provides a summary of the proposed policies that have been evaluated in our analysis. Community Benefits Charge Section 37 of the Ontario Planning Act permits municipalities to exchange the increased height and density sought in rezoning applications for community benefits, delivered through in-kind contributions or cash payments. Up until 2020, this was negotiated exaction commonly referred to as a Section 37 agreement. hi 2020, the provincial government amended the Planning Act replacing the former Section 37 density bonusing approach with a new Community Benefits Charge regime (`CBC'). Single -tier and lower -tier municipalities are now able to impose a CBC on new development to pay for the capital costs of facilities, services, and other matters required to support new development. Most importantly, unlike the previous Section 37 agreements which were only triggered by zoning amendments and minor variances, CBCs are triggered under almost all planning applications including plans of subdivision, plans of condominium, and building permits for buildings five storeys or greater. Further, the value of a CBC is calculated as a percentage of the value of the land, capped at 4% of land value the day before building permit issuance. For our analysis, we have tested each of the hypothetical projects under the existing Section 37 framework and the proposed CBC framework. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 14 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 278 of 317 Section 37 — Under the existing Section 37 framework, it is assumed that the City receives no payment from the hypothetical developments, as per the City's guidance. • CBC — Under the proposed CBC policy framework, it is assumed that the city receives a payment equal to 4% of the land value for each of the hypothetical developments, granted it is greater than five storeys tall and contains more than 10 units (per s.37(4) of the Planning Act. For clarity, the CBC would not apply to the stacked townhouse and four -storey apartment projects modelled in this analysis. The basis for the CBC calculation is the residual land value supported by the development concept under the policy scenario. As such, the CBC is variable across sites and between policy scenarios. This calculation methodology can be contrasted with an approach that uses a standardized land value or per unit rate which is held constant across policy scenarios. That is, an approach which does not adjust to reflect the cost of other policies, market strength, or built form among other factors which are used to establish a residual land value. Development Charges The Development Charges Act permits municipalities in Ontario to enact by-laws that impose levies on new developments to pay for growth -related capital expenses for municipal services such as roads, water, recreation, and public works. A municipality must complete a development charge background study prior to passing a development charge by-law, with this study setting the development charge rates (`DC'). The current and proposed draft DCs are shown in Figure 10. This analysis considers changes to both the residential DCs and non-residential DCs in the case of mixed-use buildings. The analysis does not consider any changes to Region of Waterloo DCs as the regional DC by-law is not being updated at this time. Following the one-time rate increase shown below, it is assumed the proposed DCs will inflate at an annual rate equivalent to the Statistic Canada Building Construction Price Index for Non -Residential Buildings in the Toronto Area (Table 18-10-0135-01), per City policy. For this analysis, we have used the average inflation rate over the past five years, equating to 5.1%per year. Figure 10 — Current and Proposed Development Charges Current Residential Rates- Multiples& Duplexes Rate propos ed Rate Difference Difference Iper unit) (per unit} I$1 [%1 Central Neighbourhood $7,092 $8,399 $1,307 18% Suburban $10,588 $12,505 $1,917 18% Current proposed Rate Difference Difference Non -Residential Rates Rate [per s9. R.) [per sq. ft.} I$1 [%1 Central Neighbourhood $2.18 $2.33 $0.17 8% Suburban $5.99 $7.04 $1.05 18% Parkland Conveyance (Cash -in -Lieu) Section 42 and Section 51.1 of the Planning Act permits municipalities to require new developments to dedicate a portion of the site for parkland or collect a payment of cash -in -lieu (CIL). The City's current parkland dedication policy is as follows: • Residential projects which provide land for parks must do so at a rate of 1 hectare per 300 units or a maximum of 5% of site area, whichever is greater. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 15 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 279 of 317 • For residential projects which provide cash -in -lieu of parkland, the dedication rate is 1 hectare per 500 units or a maximum of 5% of site area, whichever is greater. • The non-residential dedication rate is 2% of site area or a cash -in -lieu payment of equivalent value. The City's policy specifies the benchmark land values to be used for the purposes of calculating the cash -in -lieu payment, with different per hectare values for various built forms. The key policy changes measured in the analysis include an update to these outdated benchmark land values and the introduction of a cap on the CIL payment for high-density built forms. In this analysis, we consider a CIL rate of 1 hectare per 500 units with a per-unit fee cap of $12,000 per unit. A per-unit cap on parkland fees is a common feature of alternative dedication rates for high-density development contexts. Absent a cap or similar feature in the alternative dedication rate, projects with residential densities greater than approximately 3.5 to 4.5 FSI3 would be required to dedicate more land (or cash equivalent) for parks than is being developed for housing. This is typically not financially feasible nor practical in the context of provincial policies which promote intensification and the efficient use of land. The flexibility afforded to municipalities in the Planning Act to collect CIL of parkland and to set an alternative dedication rate exists to accommodate infill urban development conditions, with the Planning Act maximums more closely aligned to low-density suburban development contexts. Figure 11 illustrates the difference between the CIL payment expected under the current and proposed policy, before and after the per unit payment cap is applied. That the land value figures are significantly greater 'Assuming an average net unit size of 650 to 850 sq. ft. and a net4o-gross efficiency ratio of 83%. than those in the current policy reflects the fact that the parkland dedication policy and the appraised land values which underpin it have not been updated in over ten years. As discussed in Section 2.0, Kitchener has experienced significant demand for housing over this period, particularly in centrally located areas around the ION LRT. This demand for housing has outstripped supply and placed upward pressure on prices and rents. To the extent that prices have escalated faster than costs, developers have been able to bid up the price of land which is suitable for redevelopment. This has created a mismatch between the ten -year-old land values used in the current CIL policy, and the actual cost to acquire land in today's market, eroding the City's purchasing power for parkland in these high demand areas. In short, the policy no longer reflects the demand for parks and the cost to provide them in Kitchener's increasingly urban central areas. In updating these policies, City staff have the opportunity to recalibrate the policy to reflect current and emerging parkland needs, and balance those needs against other goals related to building transit -oriented and complete communities. We note however that this work is ongoing, and that the capped dedication rate considered herein may be subject to change. Inclusionary Zoning The Region of Waterloo and its three constituent municipalities continue to explore an Inclusionary Zoning by-law and at this time, the policy has not been firmly defined. As such, the potential economic impacts an inclusionary zoning by-law as modelled herein should be considered cursory and subject to change as the policy becomes more clearly defined. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 16 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 280 of 317 The hypothetical policy modelled in this analysis has the following parameters: • The policy would be mandatory for any project greater than 10 units which falls within a PMTSA geography. • The set-aside requirement would be 5% of total gross floor area and the suite mix for affordable units would align with that of the market component. • The tenure of below-market units could be ownership, rented condominiums, or purpose-built rental. IZ units provided in rental tenure would have rents set at 100% of CMHC Average Market Rent (AMR) for the Kitchener -Waterloo - Cambridge Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). Below-market rents would need to be maintained in perpetuity. IZ units in ownership tenure would have an initial index price of $350 per square foot and it is assumed that the any requirement to restrict the resale price of units in the future would not impact the development pro forma. The policy does not include financial and regulatory measures to offset the cost of the policy. The primary impact of the policy is therefore a loss of revenue and subsequently a reduced budget for land acquisition as illustrated in Figure 8. To the extent that land has already been acquired, the policy would erode a developer's profit margin. It is important to reiterate that it is uncommon for an inclusionary zoning policy to be enacted without offsetting measures. These measures are used to mitigate the negative impact the loss of revenue would have on the feasibility of development. Development feasibility must be maintained if the policy is to be effective — that is, if the policy is to deliver affordable units. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 17 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 281 of 317 Figure 11 - Parkland Dedication Policy Parkland Dedication Park Area Current Policy: 1ha/500 units, no cap Proposed Policy: lha/500 units, no cap Cap at $12,000 per unit Test Site Units Required at lha/500 units Current Land Current CIL Pro osed P Pro osed CIL P Pro sed CIL � (sq. ft.) Value Per Hectare Payment Per Unit Land Value Per Hectare Payment- No Cap Per Unit Difference ($) Difference (%) Payment Difference ($) Difference (%) Downtown- High Rise Residential 375 80,729 $1,359,000 $1,019,000 $2,717 $43,243,000 $32,432,000 $86,000 $31,413,000 3083% $4,500,000 $3,481,000 342% Central Neighbourhood - High Rise 300 64,583 $1,359,000 $815,000 $2,717 $19,768,000 $11,861,000 $40,000 $11,046,000 1355% $3,600,000 $2,785,000 342% Residential Central Neighbourhood -4 -Storey 31 6,678 $1,359,000 $84,000 $2,708 $5,931,000 $368,000 $12,000 $284,000 338% Apartment Central Neighbourhood - Stacked 9 1,975 $1,359,000 $25,000 $2,725 $3,830,000 $70,000 $8,000 $45,000 180% Townhouse Fairway MTSQ- High Rise Residential 250 53,820 $1,359,000 $680,000 $2,720 $19,768,000 $9,884,000 $40,000 $9,204,000 1354% $3,000,000 $2,320,000 341% Fairway MTSQ- Stacked Townhouse 9 1,953 $1,359,000 $25,000 $2,756 $3,830,000 $69,000 $8,000 $44,000 176% Old Suburban Neighbourhood- 88 18,890 $1,359,000 $239,000 $2,724 $3,830,000 $672,000 $8,000 $433,000 181% Stacked Townhouse Greenfield Southwest Kitchener - High 250 53,820 $1,359,000 $680,000 $2,720 $19,768,000 $9,884,000 $40,000 $9,204,000 1354% $3,000,000 $2,320,000 341% Rise Residential Greenfield Southwest Kitchener -4- 33 7,137 $1,359,000 $90,000 $2,715 $5,931,000 $393,000 $12,000 $303,000 337% Storey Apartment Greenfield Southwest Kitchener- 88 18,890 $1,359,000 $239,000 $2,724 $3,830,000 $672,000 $8,000 $433,000 181% Stacked Townhouse $ figures rounded to nearestthousand Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 18 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 282 of 317 4.3 Policy Scenarios The analysis seeks to evaluate the impact of new policies on the feasibility of residential development through a comparison of residual land values before and after new policies are introduced. The analysis evaluates the impact of the policies in isolation, followed by various combinations of the policies, to develop a body of evidence which will inform staff's Figure 12 recommended policy direction. The policy combinations evaluated in this analysis are shown in Figure 12. All policy options tested in this analysis include the new CBC charge except for the base case/ current policy scenario. This was done to limit the number of iterations with the understanding that the fee would constitute a very small amount relative to the entire development budget, and therefore have very limited impact on financial viability. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 19 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 283 of 317 J110- IZ Set Aside on 37 7PoficyCurrent Development Charges CIL of Parkland Dedication Tenure of IZ Units Requirement or Proposed Current DC Rate or Current CIL of Parkland Rate or No IZ, Ownership, RentedNo IZ, 5% C Proposed DC Rate Proposed CIL of Parkland Rate Condo 1 Current S. 37 Current DC Rate Current CIL of Parkland Rate No IZ No IZ Proposed CBC Current DC Rate Current CIL of Parkland Rate No IZ No IZ 2 3 Proposed CBC Proposed DC Rate Current CIL of Parkland Rate No IZ No IZ 4 Proposed CBC Current DC Rate Proposed CIL of Parkland Rate No IZ No IZ 5 Proposed CBC Current DC Rate Current CIL of Parkland Rate Condominium 5% 6 Proposed CBC Current DC Rate Current CIL of Parkland Rate Rented Condominium 5% 7 Proposed CBC Proposed DC Rate Proposed CIL of Parkland Rate No IZ No IZ 8 Proposed CBC Proposed DC Rate Current CIL of Parkland Rate Condominium 5% 9 Proposed CBC Proposed DC Rate Current CIL of Parkland Rate Rented Condominium 5% 30 Proposed CBC ` Current DC Rate Proposed CIL of Parkland Rate Condominium 5% 11 Proposed CBC Current DC Rate Proposed CIL of Parkland Rate Rented Condominium 5% 12 Proposed CBC Proposed DC Rate Proposed CIL of Parkland Rate Condominium 5% 13 Proposed CBC Proposed DC Rate Proposed CIL of Parkland Rate Rented Condominium 5% Coloured cells indicate policy change from status quo. Purpose-built rental tested in the downtown market area for illustration purposes only. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 19 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 283 of 317 5.0 Impacts on High -Density Residential Development Detailed results of the financial analysis are found in Appendix B — hnpact Analysis Model Results. The results show impacts to the residual land value supported by new residential development across each of the test sites under the thirteen fee/policy scenarios. Further detail for each of the test sites, including an assessment of a developer's budget for land acquisition under each of the policy scenarios and how these values compare to the value of representative land uses are provided in individual site summary results (Figure 17 to Figure 27). The following section provides a discussion of our results. 5.1 Proposed DCs and CBCs Have Minimal Impact on Development Economics As shown in Figure 10, the proposed DC rates will increase the cost of development by roughly $1,307 to $1,917 per unit. This is such a small increase to development costs that its impact on the economics of new residential development will be immaterial. For context, the average construction cost for a high-density condominium apartment unit in this analysis is approximately $650,000 including developer profit but excluding land. The proposed DC rate therefore represents less than half of a percent increase in construction costs. The proposed CBC will have a slightly greater — but still relatively insignificant — impact on development viability. As modelled in this analysis, the Downtown High Rise test site supports the greatest residual land value and therefore has the greatest CBC charge. However, in this analysis this equates to a cost of roughly $3,600 per unit. All other test sites support lower land value residuals and therefore would be subject to a lower CBC. For example, the next greatest RLV is supported by the Central Neighbourhood High -Rise Residential test site. This test site would have a CBC of roughly $1,000 per unit. It is a core assumption of this work that the CBC is calculated on the land value residual supported by the actual development under consideration. This is contrasted with a schedule -based approach which seeks to standardize the rate and apply it in a uniform fashion to all developments of a particular type, scale, and/or location. A schedule -based approach, while easy to administer and communicate, must be updated regularly to reflect the financial impact of other policy changes and evolving market conditions, lest it invite appeals from developers who can illustrate clearly whether the rate is calibrated to the economics of the day. This would particularly be the case following the incidence of policy changes which create significant market impacts such as the proposed IZ and Parkland Dedication policies considered herein. 5.2 Impact of Parkland Policy is Significant but Attenuated by Capped Approach The relatively minimal impact created by the proposed DC and CBC policies can be contrasted with the more significant impacts of the CIL of Parkland policy on the economics of high-density development. Policy Scenario 4, for example, introduces new parkland fees in addition to the proposed CBC changes. In this scenario, we show that residual land values would be lower by 11% in the Downtown High Rise test site and 35% at the Central Neighbourhood High Rise test site. These two test sites would be subject to the highest parkland dedication rate at $12,000 per unit, understanding the rate and subsequent impacts could be much higher if it were not capped. The impacts are less significant for lower -density product Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 20 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 284 of 317 types because the city-wide appraisal attributes a lower per unit land value to these built forms, resulting in a smaller cash -in -lieu payment. The relatively significant impact on residual land values in these markets is not unexpected given the City's current policy has not been updated in ten years. In our view, the per unit cap plays an important role in transitioning to this more costly policy. As the City and its consultants have worked to prepare a new appraisal for CIL calculations, we understand that there were an insufficient number of transactions of high-density development parcels in areas of weak market demand to support a more granular, area -rated appraisal of land values which might generate a lower, less impactful cash -in -lieu payment in these areas. We also understand from conversation with local developers that it is common practice to assemble properties through agreements where land does not transact until the development process is well underway and entitlements have been established, further eroding the visibility of these transactions and the ability to benchmark the policy to local market dynamics. Our testing supports this commentary as we find that the feasibility of high-density development outside of the downtown market is significantly more marginal than in core areas. Therefore we would not expect to see a substantial number of development proposals come forward to support an appraisal calibrated to local submarkets. It will take time for the impacts of policy change to be reflected in future land transaction data such that the policy can be recalibrated. Capping the parkland fee is therefore a prudent, interim measure to limit near-term market impacts. Further, despite this evidence of potential impacts, it is also possible that many projects in areas of weaker market demand may not be subject to the full cost of the proposed cash -in -lieu policy. The City's policy recommendations prioritize the dedication of physical parkland which in emerging high-density nodes is likely more achievable given large lot sizes and contiguous parcel fabric. Future planning processes at future nodes of high-density development such as the Fairway, Blockline, and Sportsworld MTSAs are likely to reinforce this intent. Therefore, while the appraised values within the proposed CIL calculations are significantly higher, the ability to dedicate and receive credit for on-site or off-site parkland may alleviate near term impacts to development viability in these emerging markets. hi the emerging policy environment, developers will weigh the opportunity cost associated with foregoing a developable parcel and instead conveying it for parks purpose, versus paying CIL of parkland. When faced with the alternative of paying a more costly cash -in -lieu fee, some developers with existing landholdings may be able to mitigate the financial impact through the conveyance of land. The city's current and proposed cash -in -lieu policy also includes a provision for site-specific appraisals which could act as a "pressure -relief valve" should the new policy be too burdensome in certain market areas or following significant changes to market conditions. As these areas build out and it becomes increasingly difficult to deliver meaningful physical park space as part of a development parcel, the City will likely have more land transactions upon which to recalibrate the cash -in -lieu policy and potentially support area -rated charges which offer greater balance between the cost to provide land or cash -in -lieu. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 21 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 285 of 317 The results of this review illustrate that the City should continue to advance provisions in its policies which would allow off-site land to be conveyed for parks purposes. Granted the parks are proximate to the development such that they serve the needs of new residents, this would provide developers with increased flexibility to mitigate the cost of the policy. Some developers may elect to front-end parkland provisions for multiple phases of development and/or collaborate with neighbouring landowners to create larger contiguous parks. Another important consideration will be the calibration of rates for physical land dedication and CIL so that they become more equivalent or in fact prioritize the dedication of land. The cash -in -lieu policy considered herein uses a dedication rate of 1 hectare per 500 units, with a per unit cap of $12,000 per unit. However, should a developer choose to covey land, the dedication rate is 1 hectare per 300 units, with no cap on the amount of parkland. Absent an adjustment to the rate or the method for valuing land, a developer who is required to convey land would be providing more land per unit, than they would pay in a cash equivalent. Addressing this disincentive will be important to ensure desired planning outcomes are achieved. For instance, when developing an approach for the dedication of off-site parkland, the City could consider an approach where the capped CIL rate is used to estimate the total amount of land that is required, with off-site lands credited towards the CIL calculation. Going forward, the per unit cap and other features of the parkland policy should be revisited periodically to maintain relevancy to the economic and policy context of the day and provide certainty for the market. In our view, many of the unintended consequences of policies which levy new costs on development can be mitigated through advance notice, appropriate transition and a clear schedule of fees. 5.3 Inclusionary Zoning Creates the Greatest Impact Our analysis indicates that the IZ policy considered in this analysis would have the most significant impact on development economics and this impact is largely a function of the policy's design. Crucially, the policy does not consider any measures to offset the loss of development revenue and so developers must instead lower their bid price for acquisition sites if they have not yet acquired one and/ or may not achieve their risk adjusted return if they already own the development site. In the strongest market location, Downtown Kitchener, we find the policy could negatively impact residual land values by 15 to 17% depending on the tenure of the units. The developer at this location would be required to forego approximately $25,000 to $30,000 of revenue on a total per unit basis, or $550,000 to $590,000 per below market unit specifically. That the impact to land values is not severe as it reflects the relatively high residual land values in this market area. We find impacts to stacked townhome land values would be less than 10% for the same reason that residual land value constitutes a much larger proportion of the developer's budget due to market strength for this product type. By contrast, weaker submarkets would see much more substantial impacts to land value on a percentage basis when faced with a proportionally similar loss ofrevenue perunit. In the Central Neighbourhood market area, we see IZ policy would erode residual land values by 47 to 53% depending on the tenure. It is important to note that the IZ policy direction has not been finalized at the local or regional level. So these findings, while useful for analyzing the current policy direction, are subject to change should the actual policy differ in any substantive way. The results suggest that the City and Region should consider transition and offsetting measures to mitigate against Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 22 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 286 of 317 unintended consequences and ultimately improve the effectiveness of the policy. Unlike the growth funding tools considered in this analysis, the City has broad latitude to design the policy to mitigate against negative market impacts, something that will be particularly important when faced with the cumulative impact of the other policies under consideration. 5.4 Cumulative Impacts of Policy Changes on Land Value can be Significant The cumulative impacts of multiple policy changes are likely to be significant where the policy combination includes the new parkland policy, inclusionary zoning policy, or both. In scenarios 10 and 11 both policies are tested as well as the proposed CBC. The analysis estimates that the combined impact of policies could erode residual land values by 23% to 92%, depending on the tenure of the units. This would represent a substantial shock to the market and would be unsustainable in the short term. The reality is that the land market is not so efficient that land vendors would immediately adjust their pricing expectations by such significant amount, including long-term landowners who may have a larger buffer against such declining land values. More likely, in instances where a high degree of impact is projected, impacts could cause some land vendors to retract from the market, opting either to wait until pricing has recovered or instead utilizing their land for an alternative land use that supports higher values. In either case, the impact would be a net loss in the supply of land that could be used for residential development. A potential unintended consequence of this shock to the land market is the redistribution of investment activity to locations where financial impacts are less severe (e.g. market areas where IZ does not apply). Another potential unintended outcome is upward pressure on housing prices due to fewer homes being brought to market. These findings indicate that the City must consider a sensitive approach to the design of the policy (e.g. capped or graduated rates for parkland, offsetting measures for inclusionary zoning) and implementation of the policy (transition and phase-in for both). 5.5 Cumulative Impacts Vary Widely by Location and Form Impacts resulting from increases to growth funding tools can vary significantly based on built form and market geography. For instance, the cumulative impacts experienced in stacked townhome forms are significantly less than the impacts demonstrated in tall apartment building forms. There are several dynamics affecting these outcomes: • Variation in market pricing — There are substantial differences in achievable market revenue across submarkets and development forms. This is particularly true for apartments which see strong demand and pricing in the transit -adjacent central core, but weaker demand and pricing in outlying submarkets. Variation in building typology and costs — The cost to construct tall concrete apartment buildings in central urban areas is substantially greater than lower -density wood frame apartments or stacked townhomes in greenfield locations. Key design variables such as building scale, parking solutions (i.e., surface, underground, structured, or combinations thereof), and site size will all influence the financial performance of the project and its ability to maintain viability following the policy changes. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 23 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 287 of 317 Applicability of policy tools — Our analysis tests up to 13 policy permutations for each building prototype. However, the potential policy changes do not apply uniform fashion across the city or across all project typologies. For instance, the Planning Act excludes exempts buildings with fewer than five storeys from the Community Benefits Charge, while the application of Inclusionary Zoning policies is geographically limited to Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs). In general, we find that projects in locations where more intensive forms of development are achievable, particularly transit - oriented locations, will be subject to more policies and therefore exhibit greater impacts overall. Market demand for housing and the cost to produce different types of housing varies widely across Kitchener. As a result, the impact of new policies individually, but particularly in combination, will be geographically uneven. 5.6 Increased Construction Costs Exacerbate Development Challenges As noted in previous sections, high-density residential construction costs have increased at an unprecedented pace over the past two years. Previously, revenue grew at an equal or faster pace than costs. With this relationship eroding in the near-term, the viability of many projects is becoming increasingly challenging prior to the introduction of new policies. Further, the recent and projected interest rate increases in the short-term will continue to erode consumer purchasing power and thereby weaken residential demand. This puts particular onus on the City to introduce new fees and charges in a sensitive manner, through appropriate transition and where possible, offsetting measures to recognize the challenges real estate development is facing at the moment. 5.7 Strongest Market Areas are Better Capable of Sustaining the Impact of Increased Charges All else being equal, stronger submarkets are generally able to withstand a higher increase in costs. These stronger submarkets can achieve higher project revenues and so residual land values tend to be greater than would be found in weaker market locations under the same development cost conditions. Where this residual land value is significantly greater than the value of a development parcel under its current use, the land value provides some buffer against increased costs. Conversely, weaker submarkets have lower underlying land values due to lower achievable project revenues. In this case, higher costs can have a more significant impact on these residual land values. In some scenarios, higher costs can impact the supply of developable land for new residential development as competing land uses will produce higher valuations, thereby disincentivizing redevelopment. For example, the Downtown High Density test site represents the most mature market location for high density apartment development in the City Kitchener. In this submarket, the full implantation of new fees and policy changes would reduce the test site's residual land value by 24% to 26% depending on the tenure of the units, from the existing status quo scenario. While this is significant, it is anticipated that a developer's budget would remain competitive relative to some representative land uses in this market area (Figure 17). That is, a developer's budget to acquire land — the residual land value — would remain above the value of properties as income producing assets, suggesting developers will continue to be able to acquire sites for development after the policies have been introduced, notwithstanding the initial shock and subsequent repricing of development parcels. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 24 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 288 of 317 This may not be the case in weaker market areas as exhibited in the `Central Neighbourhood High Density Residential' test site. As this market area is less developed and offers fewer amenities than Kitchener's downtown, there is a lower level of high-density demand which can limit a project's potential revenues. As shown in Figure 18, the implementation of the full range of proposed policies and fees would decrease this test site's land value by 85% to 91% depending on the tenure of the units, from the status quo. This decrease would make the developer's budget for land acquisitions fall below the acquisition price of some representative land uses in that submarket. This means that these existing land uses could outcompete high-density residential land values, eroding an incentive to redevelop these sites, thereby reducing the supply of developable land. Moreover, in all but two of the proposed policy scenarios at the Central Neighbourhood test site, the developer's budget for land acquisitions falls below the acquisition price of some local alternative lands uses (i.e. low- rise retail). This suggests that in softer market areas, there is much less room to increase fees without negatively impacting the new development sector. hi weaker market areas such as these, the City should consider offsetting the cost of the more impactful policies such as IZ and CIL of Parkland if it wishes to support intensification of this scale. However, even with some policies offset, market demand to live in these locations will remain the most important determinant as to whether projects become economically viable. 5.8 Recent Land Purchasers Generally Have Thinner Margins Residential land values in the Kitchener -Waterloo region have seen considerable growth in recent years. This suggests that the highest and best use for many sites, particularly those located in strong market areas, may be the development of medium- to high-density residential uses. To the extent that landowners have made historical acquisitions of properties, these higher residual land values can provide some cushion against rising costs, particularly where land has been owned for many years in advance of the proposed cost increases. The challenging financial results demonstrated in testing for the Fairway and Southwest Kitchener emphasize this dynamic in the Kitchener - Waterloo marketplace. hi these nascent high-density market areas, there are several examples of new high density redevelopment investment, often being led by dedicated rental developers in the local market where historical land acquisition and other economies of scale support the production of new housing investment. The opposite is true of recently acquired development sites. Developers have likely purchased these properties at the maximum price supported by their pro forma given the current policy environment. This is particularly the case where these has been little forewarning that the policy environment will change substantially, and the policies do not include provisions to mitigate near-term impacts to in -process developments. In these scenarios, developers will have limited latitude to discount their land value to achieve an acceptable return on their investment. This could result in the developer needing to hold the property until market revenues have increased enough to reinstate an acceptable return. This would of course Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 25 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 289 of 317 result in a reduction of developable land supply and potentially a reduction in the supply of housing that would otherwise be brough to market. Understanding the impact that cost increases can have on recent land purchasers — and therefore housing supply more broadly — underscores the importance of properly signalling the upcoming changes to the development industry. In addition, it highlights the need to move forward with a degree of caution. The City should consider phasing in significant policy changes in digestible increments, so as to allow the market time to adjust to the new policy environment and associated costs. 5.9 Long -Term Landowners May Also Hold Back Supply Significant fee increases could also impact the actions of long-term landowners, despite the theoretical buffer that could absorb some degree of cost increase. While landowner's motivations can vary dramatically, a rapid escalation in fees that substantially reduce residual land values could lead many long-term landowners to delay vending their land for development. They would instead choose to hold their property while revenues increase, even if the residual land value would provide them with a sufficient buffer to absorb these increased fees and yield an economically viable project. Eight of the ten hypothetical sites tested produced financially viable results. The two sites which did not produce financially viable results were high rise residential apartment typologies at the Fairway MTSA and Greenfield Southwest locations where market pricing is weaker than other areas. Across the eight hypothetical test sites which produced viable development conditions, the full adoption of policy changes and fee increases shows a negative impact on residual land values by 2% to 91 depending on the tenure of the units, as compared to the current policy environment (Figure 15 and Figure 16). If residential values were suppressed by this magnitude across the municipality, some landowners may view this as a loss even ifthe RLV continues to exceed the value of the site under its current use. In this scenario, long-term landowners may opt to hold onto their land with the hope that future revenue increases will restore the RLV to its value prior to the policy change. This outcome is less likely in policy scenarios where the impact on land values is more modest. As noted earlier, these impacts on land values vary by submarket, with weaker submarkets seeing more substantial impacts. Long-term landowners in these weaker market areas, such as Kitchener Southwest, could be more likely to delay investment decisions in the face of even small policy change, in large part because some fees such as DCs or Parkland are standardized across the City and therefore have a greater impact where land values are lower. 5.10 Rental Housing Would be Significantly Impacted Notwithstanding the recent surge in rental demand, condominium uses almost universally produce higher land values than rental uses in the local market. There are several reasons that put rental housing at this disadvantage in Ontario: Financing — For condominium projects, financing can be supported with less equity due to the pre -sale process which provides lenders with greater assurance of the project's viability, years before the development is complete. The equity requirements for rental buildings Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development — Evaluation of Potential Impacts 26 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 290 of 317 can therefore be as high as 50% of the total costs, compared to condominium projects where the requirement is typically 25%. Revenue — Rental projects require developers to go many years into the development process without any revenue. Further, even once the building is constructed, it can take months for the building to become fully occupied. In a condominium project, purchasers' deposits can form an inexpensive source of financing, subject to obtaining deposit insurance. When the development can be occupied, developers can immediately charge all purchasers interim occupancy rents until the project registers and the purchasers complete their sale agreements. Market and Risk — For many developers, the market opportunity for condominium development offers much less risk and relatively quick returns compared to rental development. The analysis evaluates the feasibility of one prototypical high-density rental apartment building in downtown Kitchener (see Figure 27). The analysis is constructed from the view of a merchant builder using an income capitalization approach to drive a land value residual. While in practice, it is rare for developers to build and then sell brand new rental buildings, this approach to feasibility analysis is employed by developers when evaluating whether to undertake a development (commonly referred to as a "build or buy" decision). This analysis includes a 50 basis point premium over current market capitalization rates to account for the developer's risk in undertaking the development. The findings of this analysis indicate that a developer would not achieve the desired return as evidenced by the negative land value residual. In practice, developers will have unique investment criteria which may still warrant the investment, understanding that the initial yield on their investment may be less than would be achieved through acquisition of a stabilized asset but their view of the assets' potential value when held for the long term is what justifies the investment. This dynamic is not atypical for rental housing, particularly for vertically integrated developers, owners, and asset managers of rental housing as they can leverage their existing portfolio and find organizational efficiencies to achieve the returns they require. This is more common where land has been held for a long time and largely capitalized through an existing use. It is much less likely that the City will see upstart developers acquiring land at condo land prices to develop new purpose-built rental. 5.11 Stacked Townhomes Fair Well In New Policy Environment Stacked townhomes can fill an important gap in the housing market between traditional low-rise uses and high-rise apartment buildings. Further, as pricing for traditional low-rise homes continues to climb in the local marketplace, this product type can play a role in the ownership market in the near future, filling a market gap. Our analysis looked at four individual stacked townhome test sites in Kitchener. Each generated positive residual land values that could compete with existing uses in the market area. In general, we find the proposed policy changes, individually or in combination, are likely to have minimal impact on the feasibility of these built forms. The CBC would not apply to these built forms as they are less than five storeys and while two of the stacked townhouse projects would be subject to the IZ policy as they exceed 10 units, the built form supports strong enough land value results to absorb the loss of revenue and remain competitive. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development — Evaluation of Potential Impacts 27 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 291 of 317 5.12 Passing Increased Fees on to Purchasers Any increases to development levies (i.e. DCs or othermunicipal fees) that occur between a unit's time of sale and the point at which these fees are usually paid is usually shared between the developer and the purchaser at closing. hi the condominium market, it is common for purchase and sale agreements to include a cap on future fee increases. This is typically offered as an incentive by most developers. In instances where the developer has not offered a cap, it is also common for purchasers to negotiate a cap individually. If these fees were not capped within the purchase and sale agreement, purchasers would be responsible for the full fee increase upon closing of their purchase agreement. To understand the nature of this practice of capping development levy increases, NBLC surveyed Kitchener condominium apartment projects that are in the pre -construction stage. In total, we identified 16 projects, all but one of which offered a capped development charge structure to purchasers. Table 5 summarizes this research, showing that reported caps ranged from $1,500 to $10,900, although most were under $8,000. 5.12.1 Impact on Purchasers Based on the above research, most purchasers in the market today are likely to have some protection against the proposed development levy increases. However, even with capped fees, increases will be unwelcome news to these purchasers at the time of closing, with some purchasers needing to fund increases upwards of $10,000 at closing, subject to the terms and definitions within the purchaser's agreement of purchase and sale. It should be noted, however, that the majority of purchasers would have lower capped rates. These extra costs come at a time when many buyers, especially those first entering the housing market, will have very little excess cash. It is possible that for some buyers these additional costs may be `rolled into' the mortgage at closing, however, each lending institution takes a different view on this practice, and the increased mortgage payments would be unforeseen by many purchasers. While this additional cost may create hardship for some purchasers, our study suggests that the risk is generally low for most purchasers. For many, appreciation in the value of the unit over the pre -development timeline could soften the concern. It is also possible that depending on what policies are adopted, developers may adjust their strategy in the fixture, either increasing the caps or possibly seeking to eliminate them all together. Again, such a scenario would have negative implications for purchasers. 5.12.2 Impact on Developers Conversely, developers are responsible for any increases over and above the negotiated cap. Should the increases be substantial enough, this will likely come as an additional cost to developers. For developers yet to acquire land, these added costs would be reflected in a lower bid price for land. However, formany developers who have already purchased land, this cost may not have been anticipated, as noted earlier. This is particularly true for developers whose projects have been seen delays in obtaining development approvals, as well as projects in weaker market areas that have seen a slower presale period. For these developers, the additional costs would have to be absorbed in the profit margin of the development. While some ofthe fee changes being considered in Kitchener are relatively modest, there is nevertheless risk that the cost increases could erode a developer's profit margin. If profit margins are impacted significantly, the vulnerability of a project increases. hi severe instances, this can mean that Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 28 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 292 of 317 project may become financially infeasible and could be cancelled. This scenario would be most burdensome for purchasers, particularly fust -time homebuyers, as new home pricing has grown beyond the down payments Table 5 that developers would be required to return. In this instance, these purchasers may end up being priced out of the new home market, at no fault of their own. Capped Development Project First Occupancy Out Pre -Construction Capped Fees (Y/N) Projects, City of Studio Kitchener One -Bed Two -Bed Three -Bed TEKTower Sep -26 Yes $6,900 $6,900 $8,900 $10,900 Elevate Condos at 1333 Weber St - Tower B May -24 Yes $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Garment Street Condos May -22 Yes N/A Young Condos at City Centre May -22 Yes $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Otis May -22 No - - - - Elevate Condos at 1333 Weber St - Tower C May -25 Yes $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 DTK Condos May -22 Yes - $0 $0 - Wynstone at Lackner Ridge May -24 Yes $5,000 $7,500 Hillcrest at Lackner Ridge May -24 Yes - $5,000 $7,500 - Elevate Condos at 1333 Weber St Aug -23 Yes $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Westvale at Lackner Ridge May -23 Yes - $5,000 $7,500 - Sonterra at Lackner Ridge Sep -22 Yes $5,000 $7,500 Cityview at Lackner Ridge Sep -22 Yes - $5,000 $7,500 Bright Building May -23 Yes $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Station Park - Union Towers - Tower 001/002 Jun -22 Yes N/A Average: $3,483 $3,825 $5,033 $3,980 Source: Ahus Data Studio/Project Marketing Materials 5.13 Limitations of this Analysis This analysis is intended to provide the City with a body of evidence concerning the viability of residential real estate development following the incidence of multiple policy changes. The findings should be considered general indicators of economic outcomes, not defmitive statements regarding the feasibility of all real estate development throughout the city. The selection of the ten test sites and typologies, while largely reflective of the most prominent types of medium- and high-density residential development in Kitchener, cannot articulate the full nuance of impact on Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 29 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 293 of 317 any specific project given the sheer variability of project -specific design, development scale, site and market characteristics. For instance, it is noted that particular features of the development prototypes (e.g. the delivery of parking in various combinations of underground, structured above grade, and surface parking stalls) do shape the findings of the analysis. To the extent that the characteristics of a specific development project differ substantially from the prototypes tested, the City could see different impacts and outcomes from the policy changes. In general, however, the prototypes are believed to be reasonable representations of common forms of development in Kitchener. A major factor which is affecting the findings in this analysis is the rapidly changing cost of construction. As noted in previous sections, we have seen the hard construction costs of high-density housing increase rapidly over the past two years, creating uncertainty in current development pro forma models. While we have developed high-level hard cost assumptions using up-to-date industry information, it is important to recognize the actual costing of any given project will vary due to unique features of the project and site. Further, costs change over time and our models do include contingencies in addition to cost and revenue escalation factors to capture some of this variability. However, it is impossible to predict at what pace cost could inflate or deflate over a project timeline and different developers are likely to assess and react to these risks in myriad ways. Also related is the nature of development or redevelopment potential throughout some areas of the City. This analysis isolates evaluation to one single development phase. However, in some locations, the nature of redeveloping areas is such that large lot areas will result in multi -phase developments. This analysis pro rates the valuation of existing land uses to the area required to support a single phase of redevelopment. This analysis cannot capture certain nuances arising from the nature of a historical land purchase or the former capitalization of land costs through the operation of an income -generating use in the interim. Nor can it contemplate the acquisition of land at values which may not fully account for the risks posed by a changing market or policy conditions. Moreover, there will be instances throughout the City where land vendors, developers or operators have operating assumptions that differ from those in this report. For this reason, it is possible that development may or may not occur in practice which might be contrary to the results of this work. This is a forward-looking analysis and so the findings, particularly the land value residuals as supported by the prototypes, may not yet be reflected in comparable market activity. This is not an uncommon discrepancy, particularly in nascent high-density market locations such as Kitchener where there is an abundance of developable land and growing demand for high-density living. Lastly, the impacts we fmd in this analysis are very much a product of the policies as currently conceived. We recognize that the policies (lZ and revised parkland fees in particular) are still under development. Each policy is unique in its design and application and impacts can vary significantly based on the nuance of each policy. As the approach to implementing these policies are finalized, updated market and financial analysis could be warranted. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 30 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 294 of 317 6.0 Conclusions As demonstrated by our analysis, the increased costs and reduced revenues resulting from the proposed policy changes and fee increases would be absorbed by reducing residential land values. In some instances, this reduction in residential land values may improve the ability of other non- residential land uses, such as retail, to compete for land in prime locations. It may also cause land vendors to delay investment decisions, choosing instead to wait until market pricing returns to a more favourable level. It is possible in some instances that the magnitude of change projected through the cumulative scenarios in this review could undermine the supply of land that is available for residential development. The impacts of this reduction in residential land values and the corresponding reduction in residential land supply should not be understated. As shown in our analysis, high density projects in weaker submarkets are economically challenged and while the cumulative impact of some policies could affect development viability and/or delay the important investment activity, these market locations are still maturing and do not currently support high density development at scale. Careful transition and implementation policies should accompany planned fee changes and IZ policies in an effort to mitigate unintended consequences, the most critical being an increase to residential pricing due to a delay in emerging investment activity, exacerbating the constrained supply of housing. The pressures to address housing affordability and increase municipal fees facing new residential development come at a time when the industry is facing significant increases to hard construction costs. In addition, the threat of rising interest rates has the potential to undermine demand and pricing. The testing in this analysis illustrates the limited capacity for development finances to absorb all the policy changes being contemplated at one time. The effects, however, vary depending on market strength and development typology, contextual features which require careful consideration in policy design and implementation. For these reasons, the municipality should consider approaches to mitigate the significant impacts that these policy changes can have as they accumulate in a pro forma. This could include a phase in period that adjusts over time to reflect economic conditions (such as interest rates), or dedicated measures built into the policies themselves to mitigate or wholly offset the financial impact. In NBLC's opinion, the results of this work underscore the importance of providing clarity to the development industry and time for markets to adjust with the adoption of major proposed policy and fee changes. The municipality should continue to act in a deliberate manner that seeks to prioritize the implementation ofmunicipal policy objectives. A predictable implementation approach should be designed in a manner that allows for market adjustments to occur, mitigating the risk of unintended consequences to Kitchener's housing market and planned outcomes more generally. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development —Evaluation of Potential Impacts 31 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 295 of 317 7.0 Appendix A - Model Inputs Figure 13 Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 32 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 296 of 317 Central Central Central Old Suburban Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Downtown Fairway MTSA Fairway MTSA Southwest Southwest Southwest High Rise Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Neighbourhood High Rise Stacked Neighbourhood Kitchener Kitchener Kitchener Residential High Rise 4 -Storey Stacked Residential Townhouse Stacked High Rise 4 -Storey Stacked Residential Apartment Townhouse Townhouse Residential Apartment Townhouse Building Statistics Site Area sq. ft. 26,910 53,820 26,910 10,764 53,820 10,764 107,639 53,820 26,910 107,639 Building Height storeys 30 25 4 4 25 4 4 18 4 4 Total Gross Floor Area sq -ft. 322,917 257,349 26,910 8,073 232,274 8,073 80,729 219,849 26,910 80,729 Residential Gross Floor Area sq. ft. 315,417 249,849 26,910 8,073 224,774 8,073 80,729 212,349 26,910 80,729 Retail GrossFloor Area sq. ft. 7,500 7,500 0 0 7,500 0 0 7,500 0 0 Total Parking Area sq -ft. 65,194 99,416 11,168 3,670 82,917 3,628 42,120 78,333 11,168 42,120 Below Grade Parking Area sq. ft. 37,674 75,347 0 0 75,347 0 0 75,347 0 0 Efficiency Ratio(Residential) of GFA 83% 83% 83% 100% 83% 100% 100% 83% 83% 100% Efficiency Ratio Retail) Retail) of GFA 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Suite Mix Studio %total units 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 Bedroom %total units 50% 50% 45% 15% 45% 10% 0% 45% 45% 0% 2 Bedroom % total units 40% 40% 50% 55% 50% 60% 65% 50% 50% 65% 3 Bedroom % total units 5% 5% 5% 30% 5% 30% 35% 5% 5% 35% Average Unit Size sq -ft. 643 668 720 880 720 890 920 720 720 920 Total Residential Units units 407 311 31 9 259 9 88 245 31 88 Residential Inputs Index Sale Price $per sq. ft. $1,043 $921 $909 $918 $846 $918 $916 $846 $846 $891 Residential Parking Ratio stalls per unit 0.40 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.20 0.80 0.90 1.20 Visitor Parking Ratio stalls per unit 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Parking Sale Price $per stall $55,000 $40,000 $40,000 $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $30,000 $30,000 $0 Sales Absorption Rate sales per month 50.0 40.0 30.0 8.0 40.0 8.0 8.0 25.0 20.0 8.0 Retail Inputs Retail Lease Rate per sq. ft NNN $30 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $20 $20 $20 $20 Cash -in -Lieu of Parkland Payments Current CIL of Parkland Payment total value $1,113,000 $856,000 $84,000 $25,000 $715,000 $25,000 $239,000 $676,000 $84,000 $239,000 Proposed CIL of Parkland Payment total value $4,909,000 $3,766,000 $368,000 $70,000 $3,148,000 $69,000 $672,000 $2,976,000 $368,000 $672,000 Hard Costs Above Grade Construction $per sq. ft. $315 $315 $268 $213 $315 $213 $213 $315 $268 $213 Site Servicing total $1,019,000 $777,000 $372,000 $110,000 $648,000 $109,000 $1,053,000 $612,000 $372,000 $1,053,000 Constrained Sites Cost Premium %hard costs 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Construction Period years 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 32 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 296 of 317 Figure 14 Development Statistics Municipal Fees Market Residential Revenue Inflator 3.0% peryear Official PlanAmendment $21,559 basefee Below -Market Resdiential Revenue Inflator 2.0% peryear Zoning By -Law Amendment $13,000 bosefee Below Grade and Structured Parking Area 400 sq. ft. per stall Site Plan Application $5,743 basefee Development Rates&Timing Plan of Subdivision $15,771 basefee Profit Margin 15.0% %of revenue Residential Building Permit Fee $1.07 persq. ft. Discount Rate 7.0% peryear Retail Building Permit Fee $1.23 persq. ft. Time to Priorto Sales Start 2.0 years Community Benefit Charge 4.0% %oflandvalue Occupancy Period Priorto Registration 0.5 years Other Soft Costs Hard Costs Consultants, PM, Legal, I nsurance, Marketing 14.5% hordcosts Below Grade Construction $230 persq. ft. below grade area Property Tax Rate 0.3% year Above Grade Structured Parking Cost $150 persq. ft. above grade area Provincial and M unicipal Land TransferTax 2.0% %of land value Surface Parking Cost $20 persq. ft. surface parking ama Residential Sales Commissions 3.0% %of revenue Demolition & Site Prep $15 persq. ft. site area Commercial Sales Commission 4.0% %of revenue Landscaping & Hardscaping $1,000 perunit HRCA Regulatory Oversight Fee $145 unit Contingency Factor 10% %ofhard costs Lender's Administrative Fee 0.8% total costs Cost Inflator 2.0% year Construction Loan Interest Rate 5.0% term 2021 to 2022 YoY Cost I ncrease 0.0% of hard costs HST Rate 13.0% year Development Charges HST Rebate $24,000 unit Apartments- Central Kitchener $7,092 perunit Retai Inputs Apartments- Suburban Kitchener $10,588 perunit Retail Vacancy Rate 5.00% Non -Residential- Central Kitchener $2.16 persq. ft. GFA Retail Cap Rate 5.50% Non -Residential - Suburban Kitchener $5.99 persq. ft. GFA Retail Revenue Inflator 2.00% peryear Apartments - Waterloo Region $15,278 per unit Presale & Pricing Inflation Assumptions Non -Residential - Waterloo Region $16.07 persq. ft. GFA Initial and Final Deposit 20% % ofunitprice Waterloo Regional Education - Residential $4,401 perunit Price Increase at Start and End of Construction 2% % Waterloo Regional Education- Non -Residential $2.33 persq. ft. GFA Sold During Pre-Constuction/ Presales 70% %of units 2022 Residential DC Increase - Central 18.4% Sold During Construction 20% %of units 2022 Residential DC Increase - Suburban 18.1% Sold at Completion 10% %ofunits 2022 Non -Residential DC Increase -Central 7.9% Inclusionary Zoning Inputs 2022 Non -Residential DC Increase - Suburban 17.5% Below Market l ndex Price $350 $persq.ft. Development Charge Inflator 5.1% peryear Set Aside Rate 5% %oftotalunits Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development — Evaluation of Potential Impacts City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 33 Page 297 of 317 8,0 Appendix B - Impact Analysis Model Results Figure 15 Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 34 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 298 of 317 Polky Sceiurns 2 3 5 > 9 10 12 nciple Tenure of Section 37 vebpmen[ U Laf Parkland Oeakitian T-- dns Nna: IZ Set Aside Requirement Building Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Cuaen[1. 37 Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC DC Ra[ -OC Rat Pmpozed a Rate - OC Rat acre .Ra[ wrent¢Rat Proposed LC Rate Proposed M Rale Proposed LC Rate uae XRat unent OC Rat Pmpozed OC Rale Pmpozed aRale Ci- Lof v elan (Rate Pani na Rate CILof Panland Rare P.p. 0Lof CILof CILM Pmpozed OLof PonlanaRare Pani nd Rare Panland Rare PanlanaRare CILof Panland Rare CIL of Proposed Cl Lof Proposed CIL of Pmpozed Cl L of Parkland Rate Panlana Rare PanlaMRare Panlana Rate Pmpozed Cl L of Parkland Rate rvo rz NO IZ Nod NOIz mnaomm�am mod�omea NO IZ mnaommmm onaomemam mnaommn,m mnaomemam conaammmm ��domeo NO IZ NO IZ N- No l2 51 5% NO IZ 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% IaM Valuefnmparkon 3 6 > awn- th a Rke Residemial 26a10 sq R Tobl Land vawe $ 32, -,oro S 31,,ow 5 ,00o S zBm6,000 S 27,305,000 S 26,04,two $ Z8,455,WO S z , ,two S Z6,30Z,000 5 Z4,8M,000 M,2Z7,000 $ 24,-,000 S 23,835,000 unlrc sunt a0>unirs e. m $ ,000 5 >, m S ,- $ 7 ,OoO S 67,000 $ 6 ,000 S 0 S 000 , S 6 ,000 5 6 ,Ooo $ 5- $ 60 0 S501- GFA 322a1>sq. R. Pe.sq.RGFa S loo S T S 6 S 9 $ 85 $ ILL 77 75 $ 76 S715 i Garage vs. 1-11411 % Garage vs. S--1 -3% 11,.3,0001 -4% $ 13AS4,Oo01 S 11% 14,995,0001 S -15% 15,606,0001 S -17% 13B45,Ooo1 S -12% 15,381,0001 -37% $ 15,998,0001 S -1996 (7A62,0oo) $ 13% (8,073,O ) $ -25% (7.-,W0) S 18,4650001 -24% -26% eMral 1eIgM11urM1ootl- reo HIgM1 RI Reskeircul 53a20 sq.R Tamllone vawe 5 ,1- 5,978,000 5 ,troo 5 4,037,tro0 S i,2.,0oo 5 2,892,- 5 0 5 z, ,two 5 z, ,oro 5 3, ,trop 5 ,tro0 $ -X0 .2,- 5 ,n -.-t unt i S z ,aoo $ 1 m $ 1 ,000 $ 13,C00 S 1 ,000 $ ,000 S 12, .0 S ,000 S ,a00 S 4,000 $ 3,000 $ 3, o S 3, GFA -,,349sg.7t Pe.sg.7fGFA 23 21 16 13 L4 LL 10 5 s$ 3$ 4 S ;Garage -S--1 vz. I--1 - $ 1195,0ao1 $ IsOz,00o1 �e% $ 12,136,0001 S -35% 12,91,0001 S 13,281,0001S 12A44,Oo01 5 13,222,0001 -52% S 13,588,0001 5 -58% 14,9zs,00o1 $ -80% 15,314,0001 $ 86% 15251,0001 S (51-M%Change nkal NeIgM1M1ourM1ood-0.gbrey Apartmeid a z a19 w.R Tomlland vawe $3,439,troo 3,439,000 S ,000 S ,troo $ ,000 $ ,000 S o $ ,000 5 ,000 $ ,000 S ,000 52,B67,000 5 , m unt ural S 1 ,aoo $ 1 m 10 S 1 000 1 S ,000 S 1 .000 S ,000 $ 1 0 S ,000 S 1000 S ,000 $ ,000 S 0 $ 92107 GFA 26a10 w.fL -e ft- $ 128 S 1. $ 327 SS 6 S 3$ 10001 9 S a S 12 S oe $ S 7 S ;Lange vs.srerwnol %Lange vs. Srerwnol - S - S 133,0001 -1%6% S Iuz,30 0001 S 1326,1000) S -996 1396, $ 1245,Oo01 S 1360.0001 S 1430,1 000 S 13% 153a,00o1 $ 16ae,15 o0o1 S -18% 157z, S 642, 0001 00o1 1 -17% nkal NelgM1M1ourM1ood-SUticed a TawnM1auu 764 sq. fr. To[a11aMValue $ ,am $ W $ .000 $ ,000 $ ,000 $ 1,980,000 $ 1,935,WO $ ,000 $ ,900 $ 1,945,000 $ ,- $ ,-Xo $ , n un[ ural r ni $ 216,000 $ 216,000 $ 215,CW $ 2 ,WO $ 116,-$ $ 2 000 $ 16 1,000 $ 000 215249 $ 2 ,- $ 2 ,000 $ 2 ,- $ 0 $ GFAG M. . 7t sq Per GFA sq.7[ $ 245 $ 245 $ 44 $ 1 $ 245 $ 245 $ 240 $ $ 44 $ 1 $ 1 $ 0 $2. $ Ch- os.srerweo 1 %Gan9e vs.Srerwnol - S - ll% S 1130001 -1%2% $ 13520001 S - $ 0% - S 0`% 145,0001 $ -2% P-)1 -1% S 1130001 S 1%2% 135,0001 $ (35,-) S -2% (45,000) S (45A ) -2% -2% Fa1rway-A-HIgM1 Rke Residential - 53a20 w, x. amllane vawe s v,>3a,o99r$ n,>B9,0m1 s 1g,383,666r s n3.323,666r s (3z,z>,666) s 133,517,660) s 13;019,m01 $ p3,36g,66or s (14,-,") $ (16,108,666) s 1.71393,066) s WWI -000) s 138,293,000) un[ un. i S 1za,00o1 S 128,00o1 S 132,0001 $ 143,0001 S 147,0001 $ 152,0001 S (46,000) S 151,0001 S 156,0001 $ 162,0001 $ 16110001 $ 166.0001 S 166,0001 GFAG 232,z>4sq.R Per sq. ft- $ (31) $ (31) $ (35) $ 1461 S (53) $ 1581 $ (52) $ 1571 $ 1621 $ 1691 $ (15) $ (73) $ (73) ;Gangevs.5fenadol %Gan9e-S--1 - $ 1147,0001 -2% 5 11,Oa3,00o1$ 13,985,0001 $ -56% 15136,0001 5 -72% 16,3700001 5 14B81,Oo01 $ -68% 16,030,0001 -84% $ 17,274,0001 $ 102% 18,970,0001 5 110213,0001 $ 143% (01AICo0) 5 111,155,0001 138% 156% Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 34 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 298 of 317 Figure 16 Impad Analysis Results Summary PalKv Stenarioa4 5 m ndplerenure &Building -mn 37 vempment tlraigez CI Lof Parkland xedirotion Tenure of IZ llnkz IZ setAside Repuimment Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Ga nem 5.37 P.l-d CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed MC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC anent xC Rat anent DC Rat Proposed. Rate -nt DC Rat -ntM Rat wren[OC Rat Proposed D-1 Propoua BC Rate Proposed xCRate anent M Rat anent M Rat Pro dxC Rate Proposed BC Rate CILof Parkland Rate Lof Parkland Rate CIL& Parkland Rate Proposed Cl LM Pah land Rale CIL& Parkland Rate CIL& Parkland Rate Proposed ClLof Pah-Rale C.Lof Parkland Rate CIL& Proposed Cl L of Proposed CIL of Proposed Parkland Rate Pa-MRate Parkland Rale PahS Cl LM Rale PPI,sed Cl Lof Rale No l2 NO IZ NOIZ N- Condominium ntetl rronaomiMum N. IZ Condominium nhd Condominium nted Condominium canaammmm conaammwm Ren[etl mnaommmm NO Lz NO IZ NOLs NOLs s% s% N. IZ s% s% s% s% s% s% VM Value(omparkon 5 6 ] 9 12 13 Falrwav-A-5tacketl a T -- 764 sq.ft romlLand vawe S ,000 5 , oo S ,000 5 ,000 5 ,x00 5 s,87Z,- IM10w S ,000 $ ,000 $ ,000 5 1,s38,000 5 , ao S , unr9 um i 5 206,000 S 206PW S ,000 5 z ,000 S 206,"20S," 5 5 , W S ,000 S z ,000 S z ,Wo 5 z , Wo 5 , W 5 GFAL 8A73 sg. ft. Pe•sq. ft" $ 232 $ 232 5 W 5 za 5 232 $ 232 $ $ z0 W $ $ 5 5 6 5 S Lange vs.Scenadal % Lange vs.Scenanal - S - 0% 5 Usaool -1% 5 13a,Wo1 -2% 5 - 0% S - 096 S laa,0a061 -3% S Us," -1% S 115,0001 S -1% 13a,z8 0001 S -2% 134,ze 0001 5 -2% (.'0001 5 Iaa,WO1 ONsuburban Nalgh-rM1mtl-51-Townhouse rex 639sg.Jt. romlLaad vawe 5 ,000 S1SZS1,OW $ ,000 S17, 970," $v ,000 ,82 5 1s3,000 5 , S 000 , $ ,I- $ 000 , 5 ,aa0 5 16,676,OW $ , ni unr ung • m z000 $ , 5 208,0 W 7 S z 000 , 5 z 000 , S 195000 S 1 ,000 z , S W 1832Aao S ,000 S 1W000 S 1 .000 5 1 ,000 S W $ 1 GFA W,7z9 sq.ft el-ftG 5 226 S 226 5 225 3 S S 2 S Oe S 1 S O S 107 S oe S z s S 7 $ S Lange vs. scerwdol %Lange vs.5cerwn0l - S - 096 5 1137,0001 -1% S 1311,z0oo1 2% S (1115s,2aoo1 -6% S 11A58,0001 d% S 1449,0001 -2% S 11,292," -7% S 11,5960001 S -9%e% 11A6]Ooo1 S 11,77O,0oo1 5 -10% I1,WsaW1 S 11,908,x001 IXee IJsaMhwest6Rau!ner-HIgM1 a Rke ReskleMUl s3sz0 sg.ft romlLand value 5 19,264,x001 S (9,0,0x01 5 110,-,0001 $ (13,081,aa01 $ (1g1W,0oo1 5 (1IULCo001 5 (13,948A001 S (1s,ova,aa01 5 116,083,am1 5 (v,el9,aaa1 $ (19As6aa01 $ im-A001 5 (20,031,0001 nit un[ unim e• n 5 138.0001 S 13aoW1 S 142.x001 $ 153.x001 S Ise,aWl S 162.x001 S Is7.oW1 S 161,0001 S 166,0001 S 173,0001 S 178,0001 S 176,0001 S 176,0001 GFA z]9,849sg.ft .vs. 142- 1 143 14 1691 1W631 S S S 1811 S S S 1851 $LaCS-scenftad-al %Lange vs.5cenanal S$ (14 2% -11%43% 138170(SC 00 Ia886 -53% -6a% 14 -51% 1171681 -62% 168191731 ->4% 11555 -92% 19791W1x71 106% 19A9,08W51 S 110,767,Wa1 102% 116% IXeeMkltl 1aMM1weM gharener - 4 -surrey Apo rtmeM i rex z6,91a sq.ft ramlLane value 5 , 000 5 Z,435,OW 5 ,000 5 ,000 S , 000 5 ,000 S ax ,-A 5 ,000 5 ,000 5 ,000 5 ,$ 000 196000 ,assAao 5 , ai unr ani i $ 7 ,WO $ 7 W $ ,000 $ 7 ,WO $ 6 ,000 $ ,000 $ ] , CO $ ,000 $ 6 ,000 $ 6 ,000 $ $ 6 , W $ , GFA z6,91a sq.ft Pe•sq.ftGFa $ W 5 W 5 9 5 3 5 W S 9 5 1 S IS S n 5 z 5 1 5 0 570 $tange v: scenadol %Lange vs. 5rewnol - 5 - 0% S (.9,-)5 -2%9% Iu2Wo1 5 IzW,Wol S (320,-)S Iz61,aW1 -11% S 1339,Wo1 -14% 5 13]0,0001 S -15% IWS,WoI 5 -21% Is32Wo1 5 -22% (55010.)S (_WO) a-2- IXeeMiela southwest 6na,ener-sraatea Tawnha0.e LOI.9:g.ft romlLand 17,M7,000 517,2Z7,OW 17,MM 5 ,000 $ ,00o $ ,000 5 , m S ,0x0 5 ,000 $ Ofi - $ ,6>3Ax0 5 , ni unr ani S 1 ,W0 S 1, W S 1 ,Wo S 1 ,000 S 1 ,000 5 1 ,000 S 1, W 5 ,OW S 1 ,000 S 1 ,Wo S 1 ,Wo 5 , W S 1, GFA 8x,729 sq.IL Pe•sq.ftGFa $ u3 S u3 S z S 0 S W S 8 5 08 S a S 6 S 6 5 L.S 94 S S Lange v: scermnol %Lange vs.5re•mnol - S - S 113a,zaool -1% S 131z,z0001 -2% S (LLW,o00) -6% S 11,276,10001 5 (4 ,OW1 -3% S 11,242,0001 -7%e% S 11A1a,10001 S 13A161W01 5 11,sea,Wo1 S 9% 115sa,OW1 S 11,726,W01 -9% -10% Tkgadse wnd wluessugges[in)easibledevebpmen[mndirbns. F azibilirymuldbeimprosed Mroughredured msm,increasedrevenuez,adjuzbnenh mprofi4o•combinaM1an MereoJ. FesNualland values musrbecompared m Me value oJpa[endal acquivdonsites. Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 35 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 299 of 317 Figure 17 Impact Analysis Results Summary 3 4 5 > 8 110 11 LZ ]B P.n Tenure M Buil ding condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium -ion 37 Ln -S. 37 P. o dCBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpbsed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC PmP-1CBC Pmpozed MC P. o drBe Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC P. d dCBC oevelopmeMmr, Onren[OcBah Cunen[OC Rale Pmp-,LLPh Bu iding 5uds0rs CmreM OC Rale Cunen[oC Rate -p-D-ab, Pmpozed oc Rah Pmpozed oCRah Current OC Rate Grmnt OCRate Rey Revenue Inpuh Pdposed oc R- UL--d-dun(, CILM 1111of ParklandRah Pakland Rah LE Pofq Param.- Pp, Id LM PaklaPCl nd Rah Lof Lof Pposed Cl Lof CILM LM Ppl s d -df P-11,101 -M Pakla no Ph Parkland Ph PaP.-didPh Paklantl Ph ParklanCId Pte Pa kUnd Pte Pa k land Ph z ft Cdd. Index Pdce $L- NO I2 IZ Own -hu Index - $310 persq. ft Building Heigh[ roreys Set Azide Requirement No l2 I No IZ [ail Rent $30 persq Jr. NNN 51 1 5% I Nd IZ 51 s% 51 51 51 IZ Affomable PM(Mnted Condo) $1,190 perunirp,-. F -Space In&x 11.0 $46.9 R -ii Gp Rate 1.11 $41.2 $46.9 Azide Requirement % oJrorol unlh Rezidendal Unit, 407 $41.4 Pfk Mmgin 11% ofrerenue $50.1 $48.5 $4].9 2. Reziaendal eFA 315x17 sq. ft $44.1 $41.6 ]% "'I $38.4 $3].1 Rey Cusf inputs $36.9 PhaeFa 7,500 It $31.3 $30.9 $28.8 AboveGaae Ham costs $ass pe.sq )cera >ohIGFA zz,9n sq. fL $26.3 $24.8 $24.2 Ploweaae Hamcoza $23ope.sq. ft. bemwgmde area I mpactof Palkles an Bu t, far Land Ad,ubhbn 31.0 -$1.4 -$3.5 Above Gad, St.- a Pa king Cd10 $110 persq. Jr. sbucruredparkingarea Pal k, Scene r1da 1 1 3 4 5 > 8 110 11 LZ ]B P.n Tenure M Buil ding condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium -ion 37 Ln -S. 37 P. o dCBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpbsed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC PmP-1CBC Pmpozed MC P. o drBe Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC P. d dCBC oevelopmeMmr, Onren[OcBah Cunen[OC Rale Pmp-,LLPh Cunen[oCRah CmreM OC Rale Cunen[oC Rate -p-D-ab, Pmpozed oc Rah Pmpozed oCRah Current OC Rate Grmnt OCRate Pu, d Pdposed oc R- UL--d-dun(, CILM 1111of ParklandRah Pakland Rah PakUnd Lof Pte Pp, Id LM PaklaPCl nd Rah Lof Lof Pposed Cl Lof CILM LM Ppl s d -df P-11,101 -M Pakla no Ph Parkland Ph PaP.-didPh Paklantl Ph ParklanCId Pte Pa kUnd Pte Pa k land Ph Pmpozed C-1 Park land Ph Pmpozed01- Pak land Ph Tenua I l2 units NO IZ No l2 NO I2 NO IZ nted RentedMed condominium Condominium NO IZ Conad.inium ondominium C^ndominium fontlominium Condominium Med Untlominium Set Azide Requirement No l2 I No IZ NO IZ ad IZ 51 1 5% I Nd IZ 51 s% 51 51 51 T 5% evHe (FI) $34.4 $13142.49 $13142.9 2.9 $4 03.0 $301.1 $312.9 3.0 $3043 $301 $00 $301 $30343.03 $30341 ..13 anmu oz (FV) $14 3 -Sok Cortz (FV) $81.5 $83.o $83.6 $86.8 $eo.9 $80.3 $87.1 $81.6 $80.9 $84.8 $84.1 $81.4 -P� $46.9 $46.9 $46.9 $46.9 $45.4 $41.2 $46.9 $45.4 $41.2 $45.4 $45.2 $41.4 $45.2 Budgetforlandacquisi[I, (FV) $50.1 $48.5 $4].9 $44.] $422 $41.3 $44.1 $41.6 $40.7 $38.4 $3].1 $3].e $36.9 Budge[forland Acquisition iPV) $32.3 $31.3 $30.9 $28.8 $2].3 $26.] $28.1 $26.9 $26.3 $24.8 $24.2 $24.4 $23.8 I mpactof Palkles an Bu t, far Land Ad,ubhbn 31.0 -$1.4 -$3.5 -$5.0 -$5.8 -$3.8 -$5.4 -$8.0 -$7.5 -$8.1 -$7.9 -$8.5 -Bola Por Lao 1ok-(1) Budget for Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Rice of Representative Land Uses Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 36 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 300 of 317 Figure 18 Bulldire sfadsdrs 53820 sq. fr Building Height 25 roreys Fborspace Index RezidendalU311 - F11,1ntialGFA -A. sq fr. ehiIGFA W sq. fr. ohIGFA 2s2,349 sq.h Rey Revenue I.Puh ondo Index Pce $921 -,,ft, etail Rent $25 persq Jt. NNN etail Gp Rah 1.51 Profk Mmgin 15% oJrerenue -unt R- % Per ar yarn Pmmecra 3 --p Index Price $350 Pers,. Jt ZAff-ble Re M (Rented Condo( $1,190 Per unit PermonM Azide Req uirem en[ 51oJrorolunits Rey (ud lnPuts Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Above Grade -Cost, $315 persq Jt GCA Below Grade Ha .1. $230 persq. Jt. belowgmdearea AboveGmdestmct-PaAing-o $15o per sq.J[sbo-dparkingarea valley scenarlas 1 1 3 4 s 7 8 11a 11 11 13 ndple Tenure MBuilding Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Mmn 37 [orients. 37 Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC -d!CBC Pposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CRC Proposed CBC Pmpoud CBC Proposed CBC P. d dCBC Development ❑rages Onren[OCP.ae Current DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rah Cunen[DCRah CmreM DC Rale Cunen[DC Rah Pmpozed DC Rah Proposed DC Rah Pmpoud DC Rah Current DC Rah Cone nt DC Rate Pu, d dagate Pmpozed DC R- CILM ueM 11Lof U L M Parkla rid De -u- Parkland Rah PaMland Rah Lof PaMUnd Rah Pppozed Cl LM Parkla nd Ra[e Lof Lof Pposed ULd CILM CILM -d Cl LM Proposed Cl LM P.b Parkland Pte Parkland Rate Pani. rid Rah Parkland Rate Parkland Pte Pa-nd Rate Pa k land Rate Pmpozed C-1 Park land Rah Pmpoud Cl Lof Pakland Rafe Tenure of IZ units No IZ No IZ No l2 No l2 nted Rented Med Condominium Condominium NO IZ Cory -ium ondominium -hu.fondominium Condominium Med Undominium let Azide Requirement No l2 I NO IZ NO IZ NO IZ 11 1 1% I NO IZ 11 51 51 51 11 T 1% Re $2239.] 23.] 23.] $19 23 $. $ 1].2 $ $21193.7 $21] . $16.0 1] $$. 2 $121].2 $2 6..02 CniFzV[zi (FV) 19 2 2 2 119.2 2 2 2 19.2 192 119 -soft Cortz (Fv) $61.7 $62.0 $62.5 $64.9 $60.6 $60.1 $61.4 $61.0 $60.6 $63.6 $63.1 $64.1 $63.6 -P� $33.6 $3 $33.6 $33.6 53 $3 $33.6 $3 532.4 $32.6 532.4 $32.6 $32.4 Budge[forland Acquisition (FV) $9.2 $8.9 $8.1 $6.0 $4.9 $4.3 $5.6 $4.4 $3.9 $1.9 $1.3 $1.4 $0.8 Budge[forland Acquisition iFVi $6.2 $6.0 $5.> $4.0 $3.3 $2.9 $3.7 $3.0 $2.6 $1.2 $0.9 $0.9 $0.1 mpadef Palkleson BNdgdmr Land Awu-n %u,anee 3o.z a% 30.5 -B% -s- -3s% -5z., -$3B -$2.4 -$3.2 -sz% -13.8 -sax -$es -ears -$s.3 sa% -$ss -Bs% -$s.e ez% Budget for Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Price of Representative Land Uses ;le.o ;16.0 _ naA 5 512: �Boegd Por Land Ne,.Wu. qV) E$ton $an -sem.oeramea Homes � $ao -so@e oetxhea Home: 5 iaq 1 2 a 4 s 6 Policy ] scenario a 9 1q 11 12 13 Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 37 Page 301 of 317 Figure 19 Bulldire sfadsOrs 3 Building Height -Space 26, 0 sq fr. 4 roreys F Index Rezidendal unRz Rezidenti1-1 1.0 F51 26,910 sq fr. ehiIGFA 0 sq. ft. ohIGFA o sq. ft. Rey Revenue I.Puh ondo Index Price $909 persq Jt. etail Rent $25 persq Jt. NNN etail Cap Rah 5.51 Pmfk Mmgin 15% oJrevenue 296 Peryear yarn Pramecra 3 w ershipindex Price $350 persq. Jt ZAff-b1e Pnt(Rented Condo) $1,20 per unit permonM Azide Req uirem en[ % oJrorolunih Rey (zest lnPuts Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Above Grade-Cortz $268 persq Jt GCA Below Grade Ha .1. $230persq. Jt. below grade area Above Grade St.- d Pa Aing Cnztz $15o persq. Jt. sbuciuredparkingarea Palk, scene- 1 2 3 4 5 2 8 110 11 12 13 P.n Tenure M Buil ding Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Mmn 32 rn-S. 32 P. d dCBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpbzed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC PmP-1CBC Pmpozed MC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC P. d dCBC Development .ae Current DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rah Cunen[DCRah CuueM DC Rale Cunen[DC Rah Pmpozed DC Rah Pmpozed DC Rah Pmpozed DC Rah Current DC Rah Cone nt DC Rate Pu, d dDC Rate Pmpozed DC R- U L M Parkla rid De -u- ClkueM 11Lof Parkland Rah Pentland Rah Lof PaMUnd Rah Pppozed Cl LM Parkla nd Ra[e Lof Lof Pposed ULof CILM CILM P.b -d Cl LM Pmpozed Cl LM Parkland Pte Parkland Rate Penia rid Rah Parkland Rate Parkland Rate Pa-nd Rate Pa k land Ph Pmpozed C-1 Park land Rah Pmpozed Cl Lof Pakland Rafe Tenure of IZ units No IZ No IZ No l2 No l2 ^ted Rented Med Condominium Condominium NO IZ Cory -ium ondominium -hu.fondominium Condominium Med Undominium Set Azide Requirement No l2 I NO IZ NO IZ NO IZ 51 1 5% I NO IZ 51 51 51 51 51 T 5% Re(Fv) $23.4 $2$39.4 $23.4 $2$93.4 $z$z.z $22.45 $2$93 $22.2 122.45 $22.2 $22 $zzz $2$92.45 oz (FV) 9 94 $94 194 $9.4 -Sok Cortz (FV) $5.8 $5.8 $5.8 $6.1 $5.6 $5.6 $6.1 $5.2 $5.6 $5.9 $5.9 $6.0 $5.9 -P� � �3.5 �3.5 �3 5 1 Budge[forland Acquisition iFV) $4.2 $4.2 $4.6 $4.4 $A2 14.1 $4.3 $a.2 $4.1 $3.9 $3.9 $3.9 $3.8 Budge[forland Acquisition (PV) $3.4 $3.4 $3.4 $3.2 $3.1 $3.0 $3.2 $3.1 $3.0 $2.9 $2.8 $L9 $2.8 mead Polkles On Buft-rLand Acq -n %Change $0.0 0% $0.0 -1% -$0.2 i% -$0.3 -10% -$0A -12% -$0.2 -2% -$0.4 -1096 -$0A -53% -$0.5 -16% -$0.6 -5896 -$0.6 -S2% -$0.6 -19% Budget for Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Price of Representative Land Uses ;le.o ;16.0 _ naA 5 51zn g�eoege Por Laod Ao Wu.iV) ESton $an -sem.oeramea Homes � $ao -so@e 6etxhea Home: 5 i4q ;zo ao 1 z a a s 6 Policy scenario e 9 1q 11 12 13 Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 38 Page 302 of 317 Figure 20 Impact Analysis Results Summary 34 $8.0 s ] 8 110 11 11 13 ndple Tenure M Buil ding .ndominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium .ndominium Condominium ion 32 .-S. 32 Proposed CBC Pmposetl CBC Proposed CBC -d!CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC P.P. 1CBC Proposed CBC P.posed CBC DevelopmeMmh, .nen[OCPah .nenf DC Rafe Pmp-,D-N, Buliding sfa0s0rs CmreM DC Bale Cunenf DC Rate Proposed DCRafe Proposed DC Pte Pmpoud DCRah Cunen[DC Bale .nen[DCRale Rey Revenue Inpuh Pnposed DCPte U -Parkland De -d- CILM ue 11- Parkland Pte Pentland Rate ct Pafq Parame@rs Pppozed Cl LM Parkland Ra[e Lof Lof Proposed Cl L of CILW CILM P. b dClLM Proposetl ClLM Parkland Bafe Parkland Rafe Parkland Pte Parkland Pfe Parkland Bafe Parkland Pfe Pa k land Pfe lD, 6a sq. Jf. Dodo lndexpdce $938 persgh No l2 --hu Index voce $3sD persq. Jt Building Height 4 roreys Sef Azide Requirement No l2 I NO IZ [ail Renf $25 persq Jt. NNN 51 1 5% I NO IZ 51 51 51 51 51 IZAff-ble Re of (Rented Condo) $1,34 per unit per month F -Space Index 1.0 F51 $2.6 R -ii Gp Rate 5.51 $2.6 $25 $25 Azide Requirement 11 oJrorol unlh esidenhal U- $2.0 $3.9 P.f t M-.35% oJrerenue $3.9 $3.9 $3.9 $3.9 $0.0 $0.0 Reside Mi1-1 a 23 sq R. $0.0 $0.0 2vs peryear $0.0 $0.0 Ysy..inpufs $0.0 $0.0 RehiIGFA 0 sq. fr. Above Grade HaN Coz[z $213 persq Jt GCA ohIGFA A. sq. h. Below Grade HaNCozfS $230 persq. ft. grade area Above Grade St.- d Pa AiN-o $350 persq. ft, sbuciuredparkingarea Pal k, scene rlas A 1 34 $8.0 s ] 8 110 11 11 13 ndple Tenure M Buil ding .ndominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium .ndominium Condominium ion 32 .-S. 32 Proposed CBC Pmposetl CBC Proposed CBC -d!CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC P.P. 1CBC Proposed CBC P.posed CBC DevelopmeMmh, .nen[OCPah .nenf DC Rafe Pmp-,D-N, Cunen[DCRah CmreM DC Bale Cunenf DC Rate Proposed DCRafe Proposed DC Pte Pmpoud DCRah Cunen[DC Bale .nen[DCRale Pu, d Bafe Pnposed DCPte U -Parkland De -d- CILM ue 11- Parkland Pte Pentland Rate Lof PaMUnd Pte Pppozed Cl LM Parkland Ra[e Lof Lof Proposed Cl L of CILW CILM P. b dClLM Proposetl ClLM Parkland Bafe Parkland Rafe Parkland Pte Parkland Pfe Parkland Bafe Parkland Pfe Pa k land Pfe Pmpozed ClLof P_-d- rk landRahnted Pmpoud ClLof Tenureof IZ units NO IZ NO IZ No l2 No l2 R-Rented Med .ndominium Condominium NO IZ Corvbminium ondominium -hu.fondominium Condominium n[ed .ndominium Sef Azide Requirement No l2 I NO IZ NO IZ .IZ 51 1 5% I NO IZ 51 51 51 51 51 5% (FV) -HaN.zts (FV) -Sok Cozfz'Fy) P Budge[ forland Acquisition (FV) Budge[forland Acquizubn (PV) Impact of P0lkles an BudgNiOr Lantl Acqubhbn % ange e� eoege Por Land A,,.W im iw) -s @e.tarneaHiwme: $15 $so $z5 $za $v5 $vn $G5 $Go $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $2.4 $2.4 $24 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 2.6 $2.6 :2 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.5 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $25 $25 $2.0 $2.0 $3.9 $2.0 $2.0 $3.9 $2.0 $2.0 $3.9 $3.9 $3.9 $3.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Budget For Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Price of Representative Land Uses Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 39 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 303 of 317 Figure 21 Building sudsdca O sq.fr Building Height 25 roreys F -Space Index . Rezidendal UnRz 1. Rezidentl1-1 224,774 sq fr. ehilGFa W sq. fr. ohl GFA -2. Rey Revenue I.Puh ondo Index Pdce $846 persq h etail Rent $25 persq Jt. NNN etail Gp Rah 5.51 Pmfk Mmgin 15% oJrerenue % Per ar yarn Pmmecra 3 IZ 0 --p Index Pdce $350 persq. Jt ZAff-b1e Rent(Rented Condo) $1,20 per unit permonM azide Req uirem en[ 51oJrorolunlh 13 Rey last lnPub Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium A- Grade-Cortz $315 persq GCA Below Grade H -Costs $230 persq. ft,'.=gmdearea above Grades --d Pa Aing Cnztz $150 per sq. Jt, sbuciuredparkingarea valley scenarios 1 2 3 4 5 ] 8 110 11 12 13 ndple Tenure M Building Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Mmn 37 rn-S. 37 P. d dCBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC -d!CBC Ppozed CBC Pmpozed CBC PmP-1CBC Pmpozed MC Proposed CBC P.P.tl[BC Proposed CBC P. d dCBC Development ❑rages Onren[OCP.ae Current DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rah Cunen[DCRah CuueM DC Rale Cunen[DC Rah Pmpozed DC Rah Pmpozed DC Rah Pmpozed DC Rah Current DC Rah Cone nt DC Rate Pu, d dDC Rate Pmpozed DC R- CILM ueM 11Lof U L M Parkla nd De -u- Parkland Rah PaMland Rah Lof PaMUnd Rah Pppozed Cl LM Parkla nd Ra[e Lof Lof Pposed ULof CILM CILM -d Cl LM Pmpozed Cl LM P.tl Parkland Pte Parkland Rate Panu. rd Rah Parkland Rate Parkland Rate Pa-nd Rate Pa k land Rate Pmpozed C-1 Park land Rah Pmpozed Cl Lof Pakland Rafe Tenure of IZ units No IZ No IZ No l2 No l2 nted Rented Med Condominium Condominium NO IZ Cory -ium ondominium C^ndo hum fondominium Condominium Med Untlominium Setazide Requirement No l2 I NO IZ NO IZ NO IZ 51 1 5% I NO IZ 51 51 51 51 51 T 5% Re $1]820 $1] $10]0 $1]802 $17 $110]8.02 $17 $1]8.2 $176.8 Cn(FzVtz) (FV) 10 ] ] 10 106.0 10 ] ]. 100$] 70 -Sok Cortz (FV) $53.6 $53.7 $54.3 $56.2 $52.8 $52A $56.9 $53.4 $53.0 $55.3 $54.9 $55.9 $55.6 -P� $27.5 $27.5 $2].5 $27.5 $26.7 $26.5 $27.5 $26.] $26.5 $26.] $26.5 $26.7 $26.5 Budge[forlandacquisi[ion (FV) 8 $4.9 -$5.5 -$7.5 -$8.3 -$9.1 -$8.1 -$8.9 -$9.] -$10.8 -$11.] -$11.4 -$12.3 Budge[for La ndacquizition(PV) -$].1 $].3 -$8.2 -$..r -$12.3 -$13.5 -$12.0 -$13.2 -$14.4 $16.1 -$1].4 -$i].0 -$18.3 mpacl Of Palkles on Buagamr Land awub- 30.2 3v.o -$4.0 -Ss.v -$BA -$4.8 -$B.0 -$>.B -5B.o -s- -$9.9 -5vss.2 Sss.a S1oG $so Bodge PorLaoeao,okiGm iwl E 5aa ,.-sem.oerarnea Homes - -55A -mdmtral -Slo.o Sls.o $20.0 Budget for Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Price of Representative Land Uses Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 40 Page 304 of 317 Figure 22 Impact Analysis Results Summary 3 4 s ] 8 110 11 LZ ]B ndple Tenure M Buil ding .ndominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium .ndominium --m- -ion 32 .-S. 32 Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpbsed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Pposed CBC L--pmeM.mges .nen[OCPah .nent OC Rate P-- .4, Building 51- CuueMaRale Cunen[OC Rate Poi- -Rab, P-- Rah P-1 Current OC Rate .ne nt OC Rate Rey Revenue Inpuh P,, s 131 Rah U-Pakland -tion =dCull ue 111- Rah Pakland Rah ct Pafq Paramebrs Pppozed Cl LM Pakla od I-Pakla Lof Lof Pposed Cl- of CILW CIL. P. b dClLM Proposed ClLM nd Ph Parkland Ph Pakla od Rah Parkland Ran, Parkland Rah paklantl Rate Pa k land Rah 30,64"ft, Dodo lnd-p-$918p qft, No lz IZ Ow -hu lndexPMe $350 persq. Jt Building Height 4 roreys Set Azide Requirement No IZ I NO IZ Ri,taii Ren[ $25 p -q, Jt. NNN 51 1 5% I NO IZ 51 51 51 51 51 IZAff-ble Rent(Rented Condo) $1,344 perunitp,-. F -Space Index 1.0 F51 R -ii Gp Rate 5.51 Azide Requirement 11 oJrorol units esidendal Unit, $L.9 P.f t-q,n 15% oJrerenue $12.95 $21.5 $21.85 Reside MialGFA a 23 sq ft $2.85 $ZS $2 2% pe.yea. My..inputs RehiIGFA Osq. fr. AboveGade HaN Coz[z $213 persg Jt GCA ohIGFA A. sq. h. $0.0 $0.0 Below Grade HaMCorts $230 per sq. Jt. below grade area $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Above Gad, St.- d Is kiN-o $150 per sq. Jt sbuciuredparkingarea Pal k, scene rias 1 1 3 4 s ] 8 110 11 LZ ]B ndple Tenure M Buil ding .ndominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium .ndominium --m- -ion 32 .-S. 32 Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpbsed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Pposed CBC L--pmeM.mges .nen[OCPah .nent OC Rate P-- .4, Cunen[OCRah CuueMaRale Cunen[OC Rate Poi- -Rab, P-- Rah P-1 Current OC Rate .ne nt OC Rate Pu, d daa- P,, s 131 Rah U-Pakland -tion =dCull ue 111- Rah Pakland Rah Lof PakUnd Rah Pppozed Cl LM Pakla od I-Pakla Lof Lof Pposed Cl- of CILW CIL. P. b dClLM Proposed ClLM nd Ph Parkland Ph Pakla od Rah Parkland Ran, Parkland Rah paklantl Rate Pa k land Rah Pmpozed C -I Park land Rah Prop-ClLof Pakland Rah Tenuaof IZ units NO IZ NO IZ No lz No lz nted Rented Med .^dominium Condominium NO IZ .rvb-wi, ondominium [^^dominium fondominium Condominium Med .^dominium Set Azide Requirement No IZ I NO IZ NO IZ .IZ 51 1 5% I NO IZ 51 51 51 51 51 T 5% M v nue (FV) $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $a.0 $8.0 $8.0 HaM.zts (FV) $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $24 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 -Sok Cortz'FV) $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $,o $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $ZO $2.0 Budge[forland Acquisition (IV) $L.9 $12.95 $21.85 $12.95 $21.5 $21.85 $1.9 $2 .5 $2.85 $ZS $2 Bgetn, oil Aiston(V) 1.aS I mpactaf Polkles an BudgN far Land Acquburn $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 e�eoege Por Laod Ao Wu. uV) Budget for Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Price of Representative Land Uses Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 41 City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 Page 305 of 317 Figure 23 Impact Analysis Results Summary 3 4 s ] 8 110 11 11 13 run aple Tenure M Buil ding Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium ion 37 Ln -S. 37 P. o dCBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC -d!CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CRC Proposed CBC Pmpoua CBC Proposed CBC P. o dCBC DevelopmeMmh , Onren[OCPah Current DC Rate Proposed DCRah Bu iding 51- CmreM DC Rale Cunen[DC Rate Pui o DCRate P-- Pmpozed DC Rah Current DC Rate Cone nt DC Rate Rey Revenue Inputs P,, s 1311- U-Pakland Deflation =dCull ne 111- Rah Pakland Rah ct pafq Par. -o Pppozed Cl LM Pakla od Rah Lof Lof Pposed Cl- of CILW CIL. P.b dClLM Proposed ClLM Pakla nd Ph Parkland Ph Pakla od Rah Parkland Ph Parkland Rah paklantl Rate Pa k land Rah lD], 9 5q.R Dodo lndexpdre $916 -q, No lz IZ 0 --hu lndexPMe $31D -" Jt Building Heigh[ 4 roreys Set Azide Requirement No IZ I NO IZ Ri,taii Rent $20 persq Jt. NNN 61 1 6% I NO IZ 61 61 51 B% 61 IZAff-ble Rent(Rented Condo) $1,36 perunitpermonth F -Space Index $11.7 $11.6 etail Gp Rate 6.51 $25.9 $28.] Azide Requirement % oJrorol units esidendal Unit, 89 $24.0 Pmf t-q,n 15% ofrer - $23.3 $23.6 $23.1 $18.3 esidentialGFA 80 sq R 20 $1].1 $16.8 ]% Peryear $1].0 $16.] My(u Inputs $16.5 RehiIGFA sq. fr. $0.0 -$0.1 -$0.3 AboveGmde HaN Coz[z $213 persq Jt GCA ohIGFA Bsq.h -$1.8 -$1.5 -$1.8 Below Gmae HaM cosy $z3DWe. N. bemwgmde area ra Above Gde Sff -a Pa king -o $150 per sq. Jt sbuciuredparkingarea Palk, scene- 1 1 3 4 s ] 8 110 11 11 13 run aple Tenure M Buil ding Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium ion 37 Ln -S. 37 P. o dCBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC -d!CBC Pmpozed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Pmpozed CRC Proposed CBC Pmpoua CBC Proposed CBC P. o dCBC DevelopmeMmh , Onren[OCPah Current DC Rate Proposed DCRah Cunen[DCRah CmreM DC Rale Cunen[DC Rate Pui o DCRate P-- Pmpozed DC Rah Current DC Rate Cone nt DC Rate Pu, d dDC Rafe P,, s 1311- U-Pakland Deflation =dCull ne 111- Rah Pakland Rah Lof PakUnd Rah Pppozed Cl LM Pakla od Rah Lof Lof Pposed Cl- of CILW CIL. P.b dClLM Proposed ClLM Pakla nd Ph Parkland Ph Pakla od Rah Parkland Ph Parkland Rah paklantl Rate Pa k land Rah Pmpozed C -I Park land Rah Prop-ClLof Pakland Rah Tenureof IZ units NO IZ NO IZ No lz No lz nted Rented Metl Condominium Condominium NO IZ Corvb-wi, ondominium [^^dominium fontlominium Condominium Metl Untlominium Set Azide Requirement No IZ I NO IZ NO IZ NO IZ 61 1 6% I NO IZ 61 61 51 B% 61 T 8% (FV) -HaN Costs (FV) -Sok Cortz'FV) P Budget for La nd Acquisition (IV) Budge[for La oilAcquisition (PV) mead -11kkaan BudgNier Land AcqubBkn %Dung. g� eoegetforLaoeA�oiadro iw) - rxnea Homes -s �e oerxnea formes ;as.o 5zso E Szaa 51so �;1ao ;so ;ao $80.6 $80.6 $80.6 $]8.0 $]].3 $80.6 $]8.0 $]].3 $]8.0 $]].3 $]8.0 $]].3 $24.1 $24.1 $24.1 $24.0 $24.0 $z4.1 $24.0 $24.0 $14.0 $24.0 $24.0 $24.0 $18.6 $18.8 $19.0 $18.1 $17.9 $19.2 $18.3 $18.1 $18.5 $18.4 $183 $18.6 $12.1 $32.1 $l2-1 $11.7 $11.6 $12.1 $11.7 $11.6 $11.7 $11.6 $11.7 $11.6 $25.9 $28.] $25.4 $24.2 $23.8 $25.2 $24.0 $23.6 $23.8 $23.3 $23.6 $23.1 $18.3 $18.1 $18.0 $1].1 $16.8 $1].8 $1].0 $16.] $16.8 $16.5 $16.] $16.4 $0.0 -$0.1 -$0.3 -$1.2 -$1.5 -$BA -$1.3 -$1.8 -$1.5 -$1.8 -$1.8 -$1.9 Budget for Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Price of Representative Land Uses Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 42 City of Kitchener NBLCDocket 21-3553 Page 306 of 317 Figure 24 Bulldbg 51- 53,B20 sq.fr Building Height 1.roreys F -Space Index RezidendalU- RezidenffalGFA 9 sq fr. ehilGFa W sq. fr. ohIGFA z.A. Rey Revenue Inpuh ondo Index Pdce $846 persq I<• etail Rent $20 persq Jt. NNN etail Gp Rah 5.51 Pft Mmgin 15% oJrerenue -unt R- % Per ar yarn Pramecra 3 --p Index Pdce $350 persq. Jt ZAff-b1e Rent(Rented Condo) $1,20 per unit permonM Azide Req uirem en[ % oJrorolunih 12 Rey last lnPuts Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Above Grade-Cortz $315 persq GCA Below Grade Ha .1. $230 persq. ft".=gmdearea Above Grade Sh-t-Pa Aing COMB $150 persq.J[sbuciuredparkingarea valley scenarlas 1 z 3 4 s > 8 110 11 1z 13 ndple Tenure MBuilding Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Mmn 37 C -S. 32 Proposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmptlzed CBC Ppozed CBC Pmpozed CBC PmP-1CBC Pmpozed MC Proposed CBC P.P.tl[BC Proposed CBC P.o dCBC Development❑rmges Omen - .te Current DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rah Cunen[DCRah CuueM DC Rale Cunen[DC Rah Pmpozed DC Rah Pmpozed DC Rah Pmpoud DC Rah Current DC Rah Cone nt DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rate Pmpozed DC R- U L M Parkla nd De -u- =dCull ueM 11Lof Rah PaMland Rah Lof PaMUnd Rah Pmpozed Cl LM Parkla nd Ra[e Lof Lof Pposed UL of CILM 0- -d C1 LM Pm ed Cl LM Parkland Pte Parkland Rate Parkla nd Rah Parkland Rate ParklanP. tld Rate Pa-nd Rate Pa k land Ph Pmpozed ClLof Park land Rah Pmpod Cl Lof ze Pakland Rafe Tenure of IZ units NO IZ NO IZ No l2 No l2 nted Rented Med Condominium Condominium NO IZ Cory -ium ondominium C^ndo hum fondominium Condominium Med Untlominium Set Azide Requirement No l2 I NO IZ NO IZ NO IZ 51 5% NO IZ 51 51 51 51 51 T 5% evH eCn(FzVtz) $1]32 .02 $1] 32.02 $110] $10]3. 2 $102. $1022 $110]3 .2 .2 $102 .2 $302.] $110682..2 $166.9 am (FV) 2.2 2 2 2 $102.2 -Sok Cortz (FV) $51.0 $51.0 $51.6 $53.5 $50.2 $49.8 $54.1 $50.7 $50.4 $52.6 $52.3 $53.2 $53.0 -P� $25.9 $25.9 $25.9 $25.9 $25.2 $25.0 $zs.9 $25.2 $25.0 $25.2 $25.0 $25.2 $25.0 Budge[forlandacquisi[ion (FV) -$6.3 -$6.2 -$6.8 -$8.7 -$9.4 -$10.1 -$9.2 -$10.0 -$30.] -$11.8 -$12.] -$iL4 -$33.3 Budge[for La nd Acquisition iw) -$9.3 $9.4 -$10.3 -$13.3 -$14.2 -$15.2 -$13.9 -$35.0 -$16.1 :$1].8 -$19.1 -$18.] -$20.0 mpaclof Palkleson BNd¢Nmr Land Awu-n -5- 3v.o -5a.s az% -$4.8 -$6.0 -$4.> -$5.7 -$B.¢ -$¢.G -59.8 -$9.4 Budget for Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Price of Representative Land Uses $aa 7 7 •Braga forlaitlAo)uei[iCn iwl 51, 0 >-%- 5 $za.a $2s.c Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts City of Kitchener NBLC Docket 21-3553 43 Page 307 of 317 Figure 25 Impact Analysis Results Summary 3 4 5 ] 8 110 11 11 13 P.d Tenure M Buil ding condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium -ion 32 Ln -S. 32 P. o dCBC Pmpozed- Pmpozed CBC Pmpbsed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC PmP-1CBC Pmpozed MC Pposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC P. d dCBC oevelopmeMmr, Onren[OCPab, Cunen[o[Rale Pmp-,LLRab, Building -fit a CmreM OC Rale Cunen[oC Rate PmpozedoCRate Pmpozed oc Rate Pmpozed oCMb, Current OC Rate Grmnt OC Rate Rey Revenue Inpuh Pdo 1oc Rate U-Parklandoedkation CILM ueM ClLofPakUnd ParklandRab, Pakland Rab, LE Pofq Param.- pozed LM CI nd Rab, nd Lof Lof Pposed CI LI CILM LM Ppl s d -df PmposedclLM Pakla nd Pb, Parkland Pb, P.- did Rab, Paklantl Pb, ParklanCId Rab, Pa kUnd Rate Pa k land Pb, z6, a sq R undo Index kite $846 p qh No lz IZ 0 --p Index Ince $3sa pe.zq. Jt Building Heigh 4 d -y, Set Azide Requirement No IZ I NO IZ [ail Rent $20 p-gJt. NNN 51 1 5% I Nd IZ 51 51 5% 51 51 IZ AffoNable MI (R-1i,d Condo) $1,20 per unitpe.monM F -Space Index etail Gp Rah 5.51 "$3.3 $3.3 Azide Requirement % oJrorol units RsUnit, $3.0 $2.9 Pmf t Mmgin 15% ofrev - $z.6 $26 $ZS A RezidenhalGFA 26,910 sq R Szl 296 "'I Sz1 Sz.1 Rey ....P- 51.9 M b,iIGFA 0 sq. fr. $0.0 $0.0 -$0.g Above Grade -- C,$268 pe.sq Jt GCA TotaIGFA .sq.A -$0A -$0.5 -$0.5 Below Gmde Ha .1. $z3ope.eq. N. bemwgmde area Above Grdde St.- d Is Aing Cnztz $150 persq. Jt sbuciuredparkingarea Pal k, scene rlos 1 1 3 4 5 ] 8 110 11 11 13 P.d Tenure M Buil ding condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium -ion 32 Ln -S. 32 P. o dCBC Pmpozed- Pmpozed CBC Pmpbsed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC PmP-1CBC Pmpozed MC Pposed CBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC P. d dCBC oevelopmeMmr, Onren[OCPab, Cunen[o[Rale Pmp-,LLRab, Cunen[oCRab, CmreM OC Rale Cunen[oC Rate PmpozedoCRate Pmpozed oc Rate Pmpozed oCMb, Current OC Rate Grmnt OC Rate Pu, d Rafe Pdo 1oc Rate U-Parklandoedkation CILM ueM ClLofPakUnd ParklandRab, Pakland Rab, Lof Rab, pozed LM CI nd Rab, nd Lof Lof Pposed CI LI CILM LM Ppl s d -df PmposedclLM Pakla nd Pb, Parkland Pb, P.- did Rab, Paklantl Pb, ParklanCId Rab, Pa kUnd Rate Pa k land Pb, Pmpozed C-1 Park land Pb, Pmpozed01- Pak land Pb, Tenure of IZ units No IZ No IZ No lz NO IZ nted RentedMed Condominium Condominium NO IZ Corvbminium ondominium C^ndominium fondominium Condominium Med Untlominium Set Azide Requirement No IZ I NO IZ NO IZ NO IZ 51 1 5% I Nd IZ 51 51 5% 51 51 T 5% (FV) -Ham Cortz (FV) -Sok Cortz'FV) P Budget for b, nd Acquisition (IV) Budge[forla nd Acquisition (PV) mpactof 11dudanBUEgetforLandAcqub- %Change • Bmga for-A,ogitkm u V ) $21.6 $21.6 $21.6 $21.0 $20.9 121.6 $21.0 $20.9 $2,1.0 $20.9 $21.0 $20.9 $9.4 $9.4 $9.4 $9.4 $9.4 $9.4 $9.4 $9.4 $9.4 $9.4 $9.4 $9.4 $5.6 $5.2 $5.9 $5.5 $5.4 $6.0 $5.6 $5.5 $5.8 $5.2 $5.8 $5.8 5 "$3.3 $3.3 $3.0 :21 $2.9 :2 $2.9 $3.0 $2.9 $2.8 $2.6 $z.6 $26 $ZS A S:4 Szl Sze Sz1 Sz.1 51.9 51.9 51.9 51.9 $0.0 $0.0 -$0.g -$0.3 -$0.3 -$0.3 -$0.3 -$0A -$0.5 -$0.5 -$0.6 -$0.6 Budget for Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Price of Representative Land Uses Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 44 City of Kitchener NBLCDocket 21-3553 Page 308 of 317 Figure 26 Impact Analysis Results Summary 34 $2]4.4 s 7 8 110 11 11 13 P.d Tenure M Buil ding Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium ion 37 C -S. 37 P.o dCBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC -d!CBC Pmpozed CRC Pmpozed CRC PmP-ICRC Pmpozed MC Pposed CBC Pmpozed CRC Proposed CRC P.o dCBC Development Rah Current DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rate Building 51- CmreM DC Rale Cunen[DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rah Current DC Rate Cone nt DC Rate Rey Revenue Inpuh Pd o 1311- U L M Parkland De -d- =dCull neM 11Lof Rah Pakland Rah ct Pafq Parameters Pppozed Cl LM Pakla od Rah Lof Lof Pposed Cl- of CILM CIL. P.b -d C1 LM Pmpozed Cl LM Pakla nd Ph Parkland Ph Pakla did Rah Parkland Ph Parkland Rah Pa kUnd Rate Pa k land I -Park ft, Cdd. lndexpdre $891 P qJr. No lz IZ 0 --hu lndexPMe $31D -" Jt Building Heigh[ 4 d -y, Set Azide Requirement No IZ I NO IZ [ail Rent $20 persq Jt. NNN 51 1 6% I Nd IZ 6% 51 51 B% 61 IZ AffoNable Rent(Rented Condo) $1,36 perunitperd- F-Space Index $31.g $31.8 etail Gp Rate 6.51 $13.3 $31.8 Azide Requirement % oJrorol units ezidendal Unit, 89 $13.4 Pmf t Mmgin 15% ofret - $24.4 $24.4 $24.2 $24.0 ezidentia1GFA 80 sq ft 20 $23.8 $22.6 ]% Peryear $22.3 $22.1 My....P- M hiIGFA sq. fr. $3].2 $3].1 $16.9 AboveGmde HaN Coz[z $213 persq Jt GCA ohIGFA Bsq.A $35.8 $35.8 $15.6 Below Gmde H-.1. $z3Dper sq. N. -grade area mpactaf Polkles an Buft-Land Acqubudd $0.0 -$0.1 -$0.3 Above Grdde St.- d Is Aing-o $350 per sq. Jt sbuciuredparkingarea Pal k, scene rlas 1 1 34 $2]4.4 s 7 8 110 11 11 13 P.d Tenure M Buil ding Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium Condominium ion 37 C -S. 37 P.o dCBC Pmpozed CBC Pmpozed CBC -d!CBC Pmpozed CRC Pmpozed CRC PmP-ICRC Pmpozed MC Pposed CBC Pmpozed CRC Proposed CRC P.o dCBC Development Rah Current DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rate Cunen[DCRah CmreM DC Rale Cunen[DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rate Pmpozed DC Rah Current DC Rate Cone nt DC Rate Pu, d dDC Rafe Pd o 1311- U L M Parkland De -d- =dCull neM 11Lof Rah Pakland Rah Lof PakUnd Rah Pppozed Cl LM Pakla od Rah Lof Lof Pposed Cl- of CILM CIL. P.b -d C1 LM Pmpozed Cl LM Pakla nd Ph Parkland Ph Pakla did Rah Parkland Ph Parkland Rah Pa kUnd Rate Pa k land I -Park Pmpozed C-1 land Ph Proposed Cl Lof Pak land Ph Tenureof IZ units NO IZ NO IZ No lz No lz nted Rented Med Condominium Condominium NO IZ Co-mium Condominium C^ndominium fondominium Condominium Med Undominium Set Azide Requirement No IZ I NO IZ NO IZ NO IZ 51 1 6% I Nd IZ 6% 51 51 B% 61 T 8% M $2]4.4 $76.0 $] $2] .4 $76.0 $.0 $76.0 $76.0 $76.06 Cn(FzV[z) (FV) 24 24 0 24 24 -Sok Cortz'FV) $18.2 $18.2 $18.4 $18.6 $17.e $17.6 $18.8 $18.0 $17.e $18.2 $38.0 $38.4 $18.z -P� $11.8 $31.g $31.8 $11.8 $31.4 $13.3 $31.8 $31.4 $13.3 $11.4 $11.3 $13.4 Budge[forhnd Acquisition (IV) $24.4 $24.4 $24.2 $24.0 $22.8 $22.5 $23.8 $22.6 $22.3 $22.3 $22.1 $22.1 Budge[ for La nd Acquisition (PV) $1].2 $3].2 $3].1 $16.9 $16.1 $36.0 $36.8 $36.0 $35.8 $35.8 $15.6 $16.] mpactaf Polkles an Buft-Land Acqubudd $0.0 -$0.1 -$0.3 -$1.1 -$1.3 -$0,4 -$1.2 -$1A -$1A -$1.G -$1.8 -$1.7 • Braga for-A,obitkm iw) Budget for Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Price of Representative Land Uses Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 45 City of Kitchener NBLCDocket 21-3553 Page 309 of 317 Figure 27 Impact Analysis - Rental Model Results Downtown - High Rise Residential Bulding Statistics Rey Revenue Inputr IZP Lqr Parameters Site Area 53¢20 sq. ft. Avg. Rent at Stabilization $2,501 peruaitpermonth IZ Affordable Rent $1,190 perunKpermonth Building Height 25 storeys OW.1ing Expense Ratio 36%ofGEI IZ Set Aside Requirement 5%of[o[oluni[s FI -Spada index 5.0 FSI Residential Capitalization Rate 3.9% IZ Units 16 units Residential Cans 311 units Ketal Rent $25 persq. fL NNN Rey Cost Inputs Residential GFA 249,849 sq. ft. Retail Cap Rate 5.5% Above Grade Hard Costs $315 persq. ft GCA Retail GFA 7,500 sq. ft. ProfitMamin 50 bps osercnp rote Below Grade Hard Costs $230 persq. ft. belowgmde area T-IGFA 257,349 sq. Jf. Discount Rate ]%peryeor At- Grade Structured Parking Costs $150 persq. ft. s t-adporking area PafcyScenarios 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 Pnnciple Tenure d Building R -al Rental R ntal Rental Rental Rental Rnotal Rental Rental S-lan 37 M - S. 37 Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CIC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Proposed CBC Davelopm-Charges Cumot DC Rate Cu-nt DC Rate Proposed DC Rate Cunent OC Rate Current DC Rate Proposed DC Rate Proposed DC Rate Current DC Rate Proposed DC Rate O L of Parkland Dedicatun Current CIL of Parkland Rate C.I-ot OLd Parkland Rate C. -M OL of Proposed UL of Parkland Rate Parkland Rate M-MOLd Parkland Rate Proposed Ci L Parkland Rate M-nt CIL& Parkland Rate Proposed CII -of Parkland Rate I Proposed CIL of Parkland Rate Tenure of IZ Unitr NOIZ NOIZ NOIZ NOIZ Rental NOIZ Rental Rental Rerral IZ Set Aside Requirement Nn IZ No1Z NO IZ NOIZ 5% No IZ 5% Development Budget ($ milfors) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 Revenue(FV) $180.3 $180.3 $180.3 $180.3 $1]4.3 $180.3 $1]4.3 $1]4.3 $1]4.3 -Hard Cas.(FV) $134.4 $134.4 $134.4 $134.4 $134.3 $134.4 $134.3 $134.3 $134.3 -Soft Cast, (FV) $58.7 $58.9 $59.6 $63.5 $58.8 $64.2 $59.6 $63.4 $64.1 -Profit (FV)- Included in Revenue � � � 0.0 � � 0.0 21.0 LOWO Budgetfor Land Acquisilion (FV) -$12.9 -$13.0 -$13.] -$I].6 -$18.9 -$18.3 -$19.6 -$23.4 -$24.2 eudgetfor Land Acq.NIIJ n(PV) -$19.9 -$20.2 -$21.3 -$2].3 -$29.2 -$28.4 -$30.3 -$36.3 -$3].4 ImPctof Pdidesan Budgetfar land Acquisition -$0.2 -$1.4 -$7.3 -$9.3 -$8.5 -$10.4 -$16.4 -$17.5 %Change -1% -7% -37% 47% d3% -52% 482%88% Budget for Land Acquisition vs Acquisition Price of Representative Land Uses Sx1n $tD.e $0.8 1 z t• Bu ds Q for Land Aa Nin.(IN) -Urban Soeetfrorc R -I 2 3 -Storey Class B OffirP _n& Detached HDmes -$30.8 -540.0 -$50.0 Paltry Scenario Proposed Municipal Charges and Fees for Residential Development - Evaluation of Potential Impacts 46 City of Kitchener NBLCDocket 21-3553 Page 310 of 317 Trusted advisors since 1976. Attachment B - Development industry feedback on NBLC report The findings of the NBLC Report were presented to the Waterloo Region Homebuilders' Kitchener Development Liaison Committee (KDLC) on April 13. Highlights of their feedback are: • Capping Cash -in -lieu of parkland at the medium density land value could discourage medium density development and incent developers to skip over medium density development in favour of high rise and challenge missing middle housing in general. o Staff Commentary: a cap to high density developments is required as land values approach and exceed $10M per hectare. Uncapped per unit rates would range between $39,000 up to $86,000 per unit, far exceeding any comparator municipalities and severely impacting development. The cap counteracts distortions caused by the legislated parkland dedication rate. • There was agreement with the principle that developer profits cannot be compressed, but that there are few instances where land value can be reduced in the real world with strong competition for development sites. Developers may respond by passing on costs via increasing unit prices and rents, forgoing or delaying projects, building smaller units and/or seeking rezoning for increased density. • A transition period to the new fees are critical for on-going and planned developments. Increases can be accommodated in proforma modelling provided adequate notice and timing is in place. o Staff Commentary: transitions in park dedication have been adjusted based on developer feedback, with the intent to allow developments that are financially committed to continue under the previous park dedication regime (downtown exemption and current rates) with a 12 -month sunset clause to encourage site activity. • Ability to deliver larger family -sized units in high rise apartments will be further compromised • Reductions in land values can have wide-ranging implications. For example, it can compromise the ability of long-term landholders to leverage lands to finance other projects. • It is important to consider the impacts to project finances arising from delays in development approvals The findings of the NBLC Report were presented to IN8 developments on May 17. Highlights of feedback are: • That the cumulative impact of fees could generally be absorbed in mid -market buildings Downtown through a combination of decreased competition for land and increased price leading to slower pre -sales and absorption of new supply The findings of the NBLC Report were presented to Momentum Developments on May 18. Highlights of feedback are: • Recent softening of housing markets makes this a challenging time to add fees • A housing slowdown is anticipated, its duration is unclear Page 312 of 317 • Inclusionary zoning impacts on proformas is significant • Landowners may hold back sites rather than accepting lower land values. Gradual, long-term consistent application of this policy will be required see sites transact at lower prices • Developers may respond to increased soft costs but compressing hard costs (e.g. more precast concrete, sacrificing architectural excellence) • Paying cash -in -lieu of parkland at building permit rather than final site plan could help with cash flow Page 313 of 317 Staff Report r NJ :R Infrastructure Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 8, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Bu Lam, Director, Sanitary and Stormwater Utilities, 519-741-2600 x4212 PREPARED BY: Bu Lam, Director, Sanitary and Stormwater Utilities, 519-741-2600 x4212 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards DATE OF REPORT: May 30, 2022 REPORT NO.: INS -2022-278 SUBJECT: Implementation of new Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Environmental Compliance Approvals (CLI -ECA) Regulations for Sanitary and Stormwater Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the addition of 2 FTEs in the Sanitary and Stormwater Utilities to support the transfer of environmental approvals from the Ministry to the City as part of the new CLI -ECA regulatory change. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to seek approval of 2 FTEs to support the mandatory transition of Environmental Compliance approvals from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to the City of Kitchener • This transfer of responsibility is part of a regulatory change that creates new responsibilities that have not previously been undertaken by the City. • The transfer of responsibility will result in improved ECA review/approval timelines, which will reduce delays in obtaining ECAs for City -led and Developer -led projects. • It is anticipated that FTE costs will be offset by fees collected by the City for the submission of ECA applications. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: Starting in 2022, Ontario is adopting a Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Permissions Approach for Environmental Compliance Approvals (CLI -ECA) for low-risk projects related to sewage collection and stormwater management. The goal of the new CLI -ECA process is to advance important, low-risk public infrastructure projects sooner by reducing the time it takes for the review and approval of applications by the Ministry (and/or Region, through Transfer of Review). The transition of the ECA review and approvals process to municipalities is required and will introduce new responsibilities/work that municipalities have not previously undertaken. Under the proposed CLI -ECA process, a municipality would no longer need to submit individual "pipe -by -pipe" applications for future alterations, provided they are built in accordance with new *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 314 of 317 design criteria and all other Ministry approved conditions. These pre -authorizations will allow municipalities and/or developers who are constructing infrastructure on behalf of municipalities, to proceed without first having to obtain an individual Ministry permission. The CLI -ECA approach will: Create an efficient review/approval process for low-risk projects Provide clear, transparent and consistent requirements to obtain an ECA, which can be administered directly by a Municipality Improve environmental protection through updated and consolidated terms and conditions (i.e., implement the most up-to-date design criteria) The CLI -ECA approach will replace the current approach for lower risk, routine sewage works, which currently requires direct submissions to the Ministry for approval, or submission to the Region as part of the Transfer of Review process (i.e., Region performs review/approval functions on behalf of the Ministry). The CLI -ECA process for sanitary and stormwater works has been modelled after the current framework for municipal drinking water systems. All existing and future approvals will be incorporated into two consolidated CLI -ECAs for Kitchener: one for municipal sanitary collection systems AND one for stormwater management works. REPORT: On January 20, 2022, City of Kitchener submitted an application to the Ministry to implement the CLI -ECA regulatory changes. The Ministry provided a draft CLI -ECA certificate to Kitchener on May 25, 2022 and City staff are currently reviewing/discussing the draft certificate with the Ministry. It is anticipated that the CLI -ECA regulatory changes will fully come into effect for Kitchener in summer or early fall of this year. When Kitchener's CLI -ECA comes into force, the City will be responsible for receiving, reviewing and approving all planned low-risk sanitary and stormwater works for City -led and developer -led applications. In order to effectively implement the new CLI -ECA regulatory requirements, the City must establish a new business/intake process and have resources assigned to take on this new work. The scope of work to implement the new CLI -ECA process is not yet fully defined. Staff continue to work with the Ministry, Region and other stakeholders to better understand these requirements. However, through initial discussions, it is clear that responsibilities for implementing the CLI -ECA process cannot be absorbed through existing capacity at the City, and therefore dedicated resources will be required to take on this added responsibility. Resources will be required by Q3 2022 at the latest, as this is the anticipated timeline when the City will take over responsibilities for ECA review and approval. Without resources in place when the Ministry transfers this responsibility to Kitchener, City -led and developer -led ECA submissions will not be reviewed/approved (no assigned capacity), resulting in significant project delays and escalating project costs. Waiting until the 2023 budget cycle to address resourcing needs is not possible and will put the City approximately 6-8 months behind in implementing the CLI -ECA process once it comes into force. There are significant benefits to the new CLI -ECA process, the most significant of which is streamlining the review and approvals process. The current process is run through the Ministry Page 315 of 317 and can take between 6 to 12+ months before approvals are granted (average wait times currently exceed 8 months per submission, and the Ministry mandated service standard for complex applications is one year). Even through the transfer of review process administered by the Region, review and approval of ECAs could take over 3 months. Through the new CLI -ECA process, municipalities will take ownership of the review and approval of low-risk sanitary and stormwater projects. Depending on resourcing, this could drastically reduce wait times for Kitchener and Developers to obtain ECA approvals and will result in better planning of construction due to the improved reliability of the approvals timeline, including earlier issuance of tenders for bidding, which reliably results in better pricing. Gaining the full benefits of an accelerated ECA review and approvals process is dependent on the resources available at the City to conduct the administration, coordination and technical review. Furthermore, annual compliance requirements, including system -wide monitoring and operations ad maintenance (O&M) compliance for the CLI -ECA, which were not previously a reporting requirement for the City, must now be met in order to maintain good -standing with the Ministry and receive license renewal. These additional responsibilities will produce a significant amount of new workload for City staff. A list of new responsibilities (not exhaustive) anticipated to administer the new CLI -ECA program at Kitchener are listed in Table 1 below. Table 1: Anticipated new responsibilities for the administration of the CLI -ECA program at Kitchener Develop new business and intake process Add new projects (e.g., road reconstruction, for ECA applications received by the City new developments, etc.) into the CLI ECA. Develop Level of Service standard for ECA Ensure GIS asset database for all sanitary review process and stormwater infrastructure remains current Develop ECA fee structure Prepare and submit annual performance/compliance report for sanitary and stormwater systems Review and approve all ECA submissions Facilitate continuous improvement of sanitary (City and Developer -led) for sanitary and and stormwater asset management stormwater works (-r40-50 / year) Ensure system -wide monitoring complies Ensure O&M activities are in compliance on with MECP requirements all sanitary and stormwater assets On average, Kitchener typically submits 40-50 ECA applications a year to the Ministry/Region (total includes City -led and Developer -led submissions). We anticipate a large majority of these annual ECA applications will be diverted through the City's new CLI -ECA process. Staff estimate that a 2 to 4 week review and approval timeline is feasible on most standard applications, with the exception of complex submissions, which may take several weeks longer depending on their complexity (e.g., full subdivision review, pumping stations, complex stormwater management design, LID, etc.). Resources/capacity needed: To undertake and implement the new CLI -ECA process and achieve the benefits of a streamlined approach, the City needs sufficient resourcing. In discussion with the Region and Ministry staff and reviewing current resource allocations between these organizations, the City of Kitchener requires 2 FTEs initially to support the implementation of the new CLI -ECA process. Page 316 of 317 These two resources are needed to manage the volume of applications anticipated annually for review/approvals, the significant administrative oversight of the CLI -ECA program, annual compliance monitoring/reporting, the development of new business/intake processes, and to support the streamlining of the review/approval process to 2-4 weeks (a reduction of -2 to 12+ months of wait time under the existing processes). Note: at this time, there is still uncertainty as to the full program requirements as the Ministry has yet to provide the full terms of the CLI -ECA certificate to the City. Should requirements of the CLI -ECA program be more onerous than currently anticipated, or should application volumes exceed expectations, staff may, at a future date, return to request additional resources as needed; or where appropriate, will address capacity needs using temporary resources. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget - The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget - It is anticipated that the staff resource costs will be offset by fees collected by the City for the submission of ECA applications. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM - This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. CONSULT - Internal stakeholders at the City (i.e., Engineering, Planning, Gas and Water) were consulted on this report. Further, on May 13, 2022 a presentation was provided to the Kitchener Development Liaison Committee explaining the regulatory changes. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. APPROVED BY: Denise McGoldrick, GM Infrastructure Services Page 317 of 317