Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Density payment cut for Broughton Street project

Victoria councillors have agreed to slash a bonus-density payment for a 10-storey condominium that is to be built on a Broughton Street parking lot. The decision dismayed Coun.

Victoria councillors have agreed to slash a bonus-density payment

for a 10-storey condominium that is to be built on a Broughton Street parking lot.

The decision dismayed Coun. Pam Madoff, who said city council should get an analysis of what the extra density is worth before veering away from policy.

“Having dealt with bonus density in an ad hoc way for a long, long time, I really had hoped that we were moving to an era of certainty. What we’re doing around the table today is once again creating more and more and more uncertainty about our bonus-density policy,” Madoff said.

Chard Developments wants to build an 82-unit, 10-storey, residential-over-commercial building at 836/838 Broughton St.

Under a new city policy for parts of downtown, a “land-lift” analysis is conducted by a third party when a developer seeks approval for a development with a density greater than what zoning allows. A land lift refers to higher value for land due to higher permitted density.

In exchange for allowing the increased density, the city would claim 75 per cent of increased value attributed to extra density. But last week, councillors reduced the requirement to 25 per cent.

Victoria’s assistant director of development services Alison Myers said the calculation of increased value for increased density allows for several deductions.

“The 75 per cent is not taken on that full [density] increase. It’s taken after a number of factors are deducted. So if there’s unusual construction costs or it’s an archeological site, if there’s site remediation needed, those are subtracted out of the value.”

Myers also said the calculation subtracts the 15 per cent profit that the developer needs to make. “So, if there’s any residual value after those amounts are subtracted from the analysis, that’s when the city would be requesting 75 per cent — in a contribution that would be put toward some form of amenity.”

The amenity, Myers said, “could be used to improve the public realm downtown — greenways, parks, that sort of thing — and to enhance the heritage/ seismic upgrade fund.”

In a letter to council, developer David Chard called a 75 per cent bonus density payment “punitive” and a “tax grab.” He said the city should be encouraging projects to help rejuvenate the downtown.

“By working with developers to address affordability issues head-on, the city could support a healthy downtown core alongside the benefits of higher property taxes in perpetuity rather than looking for a onetime ‘tax grab’ in the form of a density bonus payment,” Chard said.

He said that as part of the development, the city will require a 14,400-litre sewer holding tank at a cost of about $250,000. The tank would ensure that flows into the city’s sewage system could be released at off-peak hours.

He also said the boundary lines setting out which downtown areas require the 75 per cent contribution are arbitrary, and that his property backs onto an area designated for a 25 per cent bonus payment. He argued that if the city insists on a density bonus payment, it should be for a 25 per cent contribution.

Madoff said it would make sense to see the third-party analysis before council decides what to do. “Without that,” she said, “I don’t know how we can continue to be making decisions in isolation in terms of the applicability of the current policy and what is actually left over when the land-lift analysis is done.”

But others disagreed.

“I don’t support the cash-bonus density policy in any case. To the extent we have it, it should be on a formula basis rather than by individual study,” Coun. Geoff Young said.

Coun. Chris Coleman said his preference would be a 25 per cent fee. “As we talk about land-lift analysis and the fee we charge, there isn’t a clear recognition that all the risk is being undertaken by the applicant. We aren’t partners in that risk but we are beneficiaries,” he said.

bcleverley@timescolonist.com