2.         AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES - Official plan amendment and implementation

 

POLITIQUES SUR LE LOGEMENT ABORDABLE - MODIFICATION ET MISE EN OEUVRE DU PLAN OFFICIEL

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

 

That Council:

 

1.         Approve amendments to the new City of Ottawa Official Plan as contained in Document 1.

 

2.         Direct staff to monitor the affordable housing market and the production of new affordable residential development through the Annual Development Review to assess the achievement of the Official Plan objectives.

 

3.         Direct staff to implement the following planning incentives and direct supports to encourage and promote the achievement of the Official Plan affordable housing policies:

 

i)          For new purpose-built rental housing projects, defer payment of building permit fees, parkland levies and development charges for a period of 20 years without interest, on a case by case basis, if 25% or more of the units are provided at rents which fall below the 30th income percentile. An agreement between the proponent and the City is to be registered on title for a period of 20 years to restrict rent increases to the annual provincial rent guidelines for the designated affordable units.  The Agreement shall state that leases for the affordable units be available for viewing by city staff to monitor compliance.  In the event of non-compliance with the terms of the Agreement, fees and levies shall be due and payable immediately with interest charged.

 

ii)         For new non-profit rental and not-for-profit sponsored ownership projects, continue to waive payment of planning application fees, building permit fees, and development charges; amend the Parkland By-laws of the former municipalities to waive the Parkland levies.  Explore mechanisms for the deferral, reduction or waiver of such fees and charges to other developers providing affordable housing in addition to those rental housing projects in 3 i); if the development is for homeownership, the units must be affordable on re-sale as well.

 

iii)        The preparation of an implementation plan for approval by City Council to provide for increased density or height or both in new development projects in exchange for community benefits, including affordable housing, as contained in the new Official Plan and enabled by Section 37 of the Planning Act.

 

iv)        Propose alternative engineering standards to reduce residential development costs after consulting with private and non-profit developers.

 

v)         Ensure the new draft harmonized Zoning By-law promotes:

§                     a greater mix of dwelling types  throughout the City;

§                     more flexibility in housing form and design;

§                     increased density within existing buildings and neighbourhoods while respecting existing built form;

§                     rooming houses, group homes, shelter accommodation, retirement homes throughout the City subject to appropriate regulation;

§                     reduced minimum vehicular parking and loading standards for residential development.

 

vi)        Amend the City’s Development Review Process to:

 

a)         Extend the Cash-in-lieu of Parking By-law on an interim basis, pending its comprehensive review,  to areas outside the former City of Ottawa,  for affordable housing proposals.

 

b)         Delegate to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals the authority to approve cash-in-lieu of parking applications at a nominal fee of $1.00 per parking space for the  provision of affordable housing units.

 

c)         Amend application forms for Plan of Subdivision and Condominium, and Site Plan Control Approval, to require information on the proposed housing mix, tenure and anticipated prices (rental or sale) of any proposed developments containing dwelling units and the length of time any affordable units will remain affordable and what mechanism will be used to achieve this.

 

d)         Amend By-law No. 2001-451 respecting other information or materials to be provided for certain planning applications, to reflect the additional information requested as noted in c) above.

 

 

e)         Require all Planning and Environment Committee or delegated authority reports on Plan of Subdivision and Condominium, and Site Plan Control Approval, for applications proposing dwelling units to include an evaluation of how the affordable housing targets in the Official Plan are being met through the proposed development including the length of time any affordable units will remain affordable and what mechanisms will be used to achieve this.

 

4.         Direct staff to petition the Federal and Provincial Government to:

 

i)          allow municipalities through the provincial planning policy statement to set requirements for a minimum percentage of new housing to be affordable to the 40th income percentile with 15% affordable to the 30th income percentile using a variety of tools such as land dedication, cash-in-lieu, and off-site development;

ii)         allow the use of development levies specifically for affordable housing;

iii)        allow municipalities to require land dedication for affordable housing, with a provision that land price reflect the value of the land with the affordable housing;

iv)        provide a provincial sales tax offset grant on construction materials used in affordable, purpose built rental housing and permanently affordable ownership housing ;

v)                  re-examine income and property tax treatment of rental housing with full consultation with affordable housing organizations such as ONPHA, CHFC, CHRA and other industry associations; and,

vi)                provide a GST offset grant or exemption on construction materials in affordable, purpose-built rental housing and permanently affordable ownership housing.

 

5.         Direct the Community and Protective Services Department to investigate ways of establishing and implementing a Housing Trust Fund to receive and disperse any development levies, cash in lieu payments and/or land contributions made under Recommendation 3(iii) towards affordable housing, including the evaluation of an oversight board that includes community representatives, and report back to both the Planning and Environment Committee and the Health and Social Services Committee.

 

6.                  Direct Corporate Services and Community and Protective Services Department to undertake an evaluation of the Housing First policy to ensure the City has an effective, transparent and appropriate policy for the disposal of surplus municipal land and including the evaluation of all options such as the ability to land bank for affordable housing.

 

7.                  That the zoning amendment process be initiated to allow secondary suites in all residential zones.

 

RECOMMANDATIONS MODIFIées DU COMITÉ

 

Que le Conseil :

 

1.         approuve les modifications au Plan officiel de la Ville d’Ottawa contenues dans le document 1.

 

2.         donne instruction au personnel de surveiller le marché du logement abordable et la réalisation de nouveaux ensembles de logements abordables dans le cadre de l'examen annuel de l'aménagement, dans le but d'évaluer l'atteinte des objectifs énoncés dans le Plan officiel.

 

3.         donne instruction au personnel de mettre en oeuvre les mesures d'incitation suivantes et d'orienter les mesures d'aide de façon à favoriser et à promouvoir la réalisation des politiques contenues dans le Plan officiel au sujet du logement abordable :

 

(i)         Dans le cas des nouveaux ensembles de logements conçus expressément à des fins locatives, reporter le paiement des frais d'obtention de permis de construire, des frais relatifs aux terrains à vocation de parcs et des redevances d'exploitation pour une période de 20 ans sans intérêt (mesure devant être décidée au cas par cas), si le loyer d'au moins 25 p. 100 des logements est inférieur à 30 p. 100 du revenu des locataires. Une entente entre le promoteur et la Ville devra être officiellement inscrite au titre foncier pour une période de 20 ans, de façon que les augmentations de loyer annuelles ne dépassent pas les limites prescrites par les lignes directrices provinciales annuelles pour ce qui concerne les logements abordables. L'entente devra préciser que les baux relatifs aux logements abordables devront pouvoir être consultés par le personnel de la Ville, afin que celui-ci puisse en vérifier la conformité à l'entente. En cas de non-respect des modalités de l'entente, les frais et droits, majorés des intérêts, seront exigibles immédiatement.

 

(ii)        Dans le cas des ensembles de logements locatifs sans but lucratif et des ensembles à propriété parrainée sans but lucratif, continuer de surseoir au paiement des frais de présentation de demandes d'aménagement, des frais d'obtention de permis de construire et des redevances d'exploitation; modifier les règlements sur les parcs des anciennes municipalités afin de renoncer au prélèvement des frais relatifs aux terrains à vocation de parcs; et explorer des mécanismes de report, de réduction ou de dispense de ces frais à l'intention des autres promoteurs offrant des ensembles de logements abordables en plus de ceux visés au paragraphe 3 (i); si l’aménagement est destiné aux propriétés résidentielles, les unités d’habitation doivent être abordables au moment de la revente également.


(iii)       Rédiger un plan de mise en oeuvre à soumettre à l'approbation du Conseil municipal et prévoyant une augmentation de la densité ou de la hauteur ou des deux, dans le cas des nouveaux projets d'aménagement, en échange des avantages pour la collectivité, y compris des logements abordables, prévus au nouveau Plan officiel et rendus possibles par l'article 37 de la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire.

 

(iv)       Proposer des normes techniques de remplacement afin de réduire les coûts d'aménagement des ensembles résidentiels après avoir consulté les promoteurs privés et sans but lucratif.

 

(v)        Veiller à ce que le nouveau règlement de zonage harmonisé provisoire mette en valeur les points suivants :

 

§         de promouvoir une plus grande diversité de logements sur l'ensemble du territoire de la ville;

§         d'accorder plus de souplesse en ce qui concerne la forme et la conception des logements;

§         d'augmenter la densité des immeubles et des quartiers existants tout en respectant le bâti actuel;

§         de permettre les maisons de chambres, les foyers de groupe, les refuges et les maisons de retraite sur tout le territoire de la ville, moyennant une réglementation appropriée;

§         d'assouplir les normes minimales relatives au stationnement et au chargement des véhicules pour les ensembles résidentiels.

 

(vi)       Modifier le processus d'examen des demandes d'aménagement en vigueur à la Ville de façon à :

 

a)         Étendre provisoirement l'application des dispositions du Règlement municipal sur le stationnement concernant le règlement financier des exigences de stationnement aux secteurs situés à l'extérieur du territoire de l'ancienne ville d'Ottawa, pour ce qui concerne les propositions de logements abordables.

 

b)         Déléguer au directeur de l'Urbanisme et de l'aménagement le pouvoir d'approuver les demandes de règlement financier des exigences de stationnement moyennant des frais symboliques de un dollar par place de stationnement, dans le cas de la production de logements abordables.

 


c)         Modifier les formulaires de demande afin d'exiger des renseignements sur l'agencement, l'occupation et le prix (de location ou de vente) des logements, dans le cas des aménagements proposés devant contenir des unités d'habitation ainsi que sur la durée pour laquelle toute unité demeurera abordable et sur les mécanismes utilisés pour y parvenir.

 

d)         Modifier le Règlement municipal no 451-2001 concernant les autres renseignements ou documents à produire pour certaines demandes d'urbanisme, afin de tenir compte des renseignements supplémentaires mentionnés au paragraphe (c).

 

e)         Exiger que tous les rapports produits par le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement ou les rapports produits en vertu de pouvoirs délégués concernant des demandes d'approbation de plans de lotissement et d'immeubles en copropriété ainsi que des demandes d'approbation de plans d'implantation comportent une évaluation de la manière dont ces demandes permettent d'atteindre les objectifs fixés dans le Plan officiel en matière de logements abordables, si ces demandes prévoient la construction d'unités d'habitation, y compris la durée pour laquelle toute unité demeurera abordable et les mécanismes utilisés pour y parvenir.

 

4.         donne instruction au personnel de demander aux gouvernements fédéral et provincial :

 

(i)         permettre aux municipalités, par le biais de la politique provinciale sur l'urbanisme, d'exiger qu'un certain pourcentage minimum des nouveaux logements soient des logements abordables à 40 p. cent du revenu et 15 % soient abordables à 30 p. cent du revenu, en usant pour ce faire de divers moyens (désignation de terrains, règlement financier, aménagement hors site, etc.);

(ii)        de permettre l'affectation expresse des redevances d'exploitation au logement abordable;

(iii)       de permettre aux municipalités d'exiger que des terrains soient réservés à la construction de logements abordables, à la condition que le prix du terrain reflète la valeur de celui-ci avec les logements abordables.

(iv)       prévoir une subvention destinée à compenser la taxe de vente provinciale sur les matériaux de construction utilisés pour la construction de logements conçus expressément comme des logements locatifs abordables et de propriétés résidentielles abordables à long terme.

(v)        revoir le traitement des logements locatifs aux fins de l'impôt sur le revenu et de l'impôt foncier en consultant de façon approfondie les organismes de logements abordables, comme l’ALSBLO, la FHCC et l’ACHRU ainsi que d’autres associations de l’industrie.

(vi)       octroyer une compensation ou une exemption de la TPS sur les matériaux de construction utilisés pour la construction de logements conçus expressément comme des logements locatifs abordables et de propriétés résidentielles abordables à long terme.

 

5.         donne instruction aux Services communautaires et de protection d'examiner des façons d'établir et de mettre en œuvre un fonds de fiducie pour le logement dans lequel seraient accumulés les redevances d'exploitation, le montant des règlements financiers des exigences de stationnement et (ou) les contributions foncières faites aux termes de la recommandation 3 (iii) en vue de leur affectation au logement abordable, d’évaluer la possibilité d’inclure un comité de surveillance comprenant des représentants de la collectivité et de faire rapport au Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement ainsi qu'au Comité de la santé et des services sociaux.

 

6.            donne instruction aux Services généraux et aux Services communautaires et de protection de procéder à une évaluation de la politique de priorité au logement afin de s'assurer que la Ville possède une politique efficace, transparente et appropriée pour l'aliénation des terrains municipaux excédentaires et qui comprend l’évaluation de toutes les solutions possibles, comme la capacité de puiser dans la réserve foncière aux fins des logements abordables.

 

7.         lance le processus de modification du zonage afin de permettre des appartements accessoires dans toutes les zones résidentielles.

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.                  Planning and Growth Management Deputy City Manager’s report dated 20 May 2004 (ACS2004-DEV-POL-0002).

 

2.                  Extract of Draft Minutes, 8 June 2004.


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

20 May 2004 / le 20 mai 2004

 

Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, General Manager/Directeur général,

Planning and Development / Urbanisme et Aménagement

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager / Gestionnaire

Community Design and Environment / Conception et milieu communautaire

(613) 580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

 

City-Wide

Ref N°: ACS2004-DEV-POL-0002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES - OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

 

 

OBJET :

POLITIQUES SUR LE LOGEMENT ABORDABLE - MODIFICATION ET MISE EN OEUVRE DU PLAN OFFICIEL

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.         Approve amendments to the new City of Ottawa Official Plan as contained in Document 1.

 

2.         Direct staff to monitor the affordable housing market and the production of new affordable residential development through the Annual Development Review to assess the achievement of the Official Plan objectives.

 

3.         Direct staff to implement the following planning incentives and direct supports to encourage and promote the achievement of the Official Plan affordable housing policies:

 

 i)         For new purpose-built rental housing projects, defer payment of building permit fees, parkland levies and development charges for a period of 10 years without interest, on a case by case basis, if 25% or more of the units are provided at rents which fall below the 30th income percentile. An agreement between the proponent and the City is to be registered on title for a period of 10 years to restrict rent increases to the annual provincial rent guidelines for the designated affordable units.  The Agreement shall state that leases for the affordable units be available for viewing by city staff to monitor compliance.  In the event of non-compliance with the terms of the Agreement, fees and levies shall be due and payable immediately with interest charged.

 

ii)         For new non-profit rental and not-for-profit sponsored ownership projects, continue to waive payment of  planning application fees, building permit fees, and development charges; amend the Parkland By-laws of the former municipalities to waive the Parkland levies; and explore mechanisms for the deferral, reduction or waiver of such fees and charges to other developers providing affordable housing in addition to those rental housing projects in 3i).

 

iii)        The preparation of an implementation plan for approval by City Council to provide for increased density or height or both in new development projects in exchange for community benefits, including affordable housing, as contained in the new Official Plan and enabled by Section 37 of the Planning Act.

 

iv)        Propose alternative engineering  standards to reduce residential development costs.

 

v)         Ensure that in the preparation of the new harmonized Zoning By-law, opportunities be identified to:

 

promote a greater mix of dwelling types  throughout the City;

provide more flexibility in housing form and design;

increase density within existing buildings and neighbourhoods while respecting existing built form;

permit rooming houses, group homes, shelter accommodation, retirement homes throughout the City subject to appropriate regulation;

reduce minimum vehicular parking and loading standards for residential development.

 

vi)        Amend the City's Development Review Process to:

 

a)         Extend the Cash-in-lieu of Parking By-law on an interim basis, pending its comprehensive review,  to areas outside the former City of Ottawa,  for affordable housing proposals.

 

b)         Delegate to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals the authority to approve cash-in-lieu of parking applications at a nominal fee of $1.00 per parking space for the  provision of affordable housing units.

 

c)         Amend application forms for Plan of Subdivision and Condominium, and Site Plan Control Approval, to require information on the proposed housing mix, tenure and anticipated prices (rental or sale) of any proposed developments containing dwelling units.

 

d)         Amend By-law No. 2001-451 respecting other information or materials to be provided for certain planning applications, to reflect the additional information requested as noted in c) above.

 

e)         Require all Planning and Environment Committee or delegated authority reports on Plan of Subdivision and Condominium, and Site Plan Control Approval, for applications proposing dwelling units to include an evaluation of how the affordable housing targets in the Official Plan are being met through the proposed development.

 

4.         Direct staff to petition the Federal and Provincial Government to:

 

i)          allow municipalities through the provincial planning policy statement to set requirements for a minimum percentage of new housing to be affordable using a variety of tools such as land dedication, cash-in-lieu, and off-site development;

ii)         allow the use of development levies specifically for affordable housing;

iii)        allow municipalities to require land dedication for affordable housing, with a provision that land price reflect the value of the land with the affordable housing;

iv)        provide a provincial sales tax offset grant on construction materials used in affordable, purpose built rental housing; and

v)         re-examine income and property tax treatment of rental housing.

 

5.         Direct the People Services Department to investigate ways of establishing and implementing a Housing Trust Fund to receive and disperse any development levies, cash in lieu payments and/or land contributions made under Recommendation 3(iii)  towards affordable housing, and report back to both the Planning and Environment Committee and the Health and Social Services Committee.

 

6.         Direct the Corporate Services Department and People Services Department to undertake an evaluation of the Housing First policy to ensure the City has an effective and appropriate policy for the disposal of surplus municipal land.

 


RECOMMENDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'aménagement recommande au Conseil :

 

1.         D'approuver les modifications au Plan officiel de la Ville d'Ottawa contenues dans le document 1.

 

2.         De donner instruction au personnel de surveiller le marché du logement abordable et la réalisation de nouveaux ensembles de logements abordables dans le cadre de l'examen annuel de l'aménagement, dans le but d'évaluer l'atteinte des objectifs énoncés dans le Plan officiel.

 

3.         De donner instruction au personnel de mettre en oeuvre les mesures d'incitation suivantes et d'orienter les mesures d'aide de façon à favoriser et à promouvoir la réalisation des politiques contenues dans le Plan officiel au sujet du logement abordable :

 

(i)         Dans le cas des nouveaux ensembles de logements conçus expressément à des fins locatives, reporter le paiement des frais d'obtention de permis de construire, des frais relatifs aux terrains à vocation de parcs et des redevances d'exploitation pour une période de 10 ans sans intérêt (mesure devant être décidée au cas par cas), si le loyer d'au moins 25 p. 100 des logements est inférieur à 30 p. 100 du revenu des locataires. Une entente entre le promoteur et la Ville devra être officiellement inscrite au titre foncier pour une période de dix ans, de façon que les augmentations de loyer annuelles ne dépassent pas les limites prescrites par les lignes directrices provinciales annuelles pour ce qui concerne les logements abordables. L'entente devra préciser que les baux relatifs aux logements abordables devront pouvoir être consultés par le personnel de la Ville, afin que celui-ci puisse en vérifier la conformité à l'entente. En cas de non-respect des modalités de l'entente, les frais et droits, majorés des intérêts, seront exigibles immédiatement.

 

(ii)        Dans le cas des ensembles de logements locatifs sans but lucratif et des ensembles à propriété parrainée sans but lucratif, continuer de surseoir au paiement des frais de présentation de demandes d'aménagement, des frais d'obtention de permis de construire et des redevances d'exploitation; modifier les règlements sur les parcs des anciennes municipalités afin de renoncer au prélèvement des frais relatifs aux terrains à vocation de parcs; et explorer des mécanismes de report, de réduction ou de dispense de ces frais à l'intention des autres promoteurs offrant des ensembles de logements abordables en plus de ceux visés au paragraphe 3 (i).

 

 (iii)      Rédiger un plan de mise en oeuvre à soumettre à l'approbation du Conseil municipal et prévoyant une augmentation de la densité ou de la hauteur ou des deux, dans le cas des nouveaux projets d'aménagement, en échange des avantages pour la collectivité, y compris des logements abordables, prévus au nouveau Plan officiel et rendus possibles par l'article 37 de la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire.

 

(iv)       Proposer des normes techniques de remplacement afin de réduire les coûts d'aménagement des ensembles résidentiels.

 

(v)        Veiller à ce que, au moment de la rédaction du nouveau règlement de zonage harmonisé, on détermine des possibilités :

 

de promouvoir une plus grande diversité de logements sur l'ensemble du territoire de la ville;

d'accorder plus de souplesse en ce qui concerne la forme et la conception des logements;

d'augmenter la densité des immeubles et des quartiers existants tout en respectant le bâti actuel;

de permettre les maisons de chambres, les foyers de groupe, les refuges et les maisons de retraite sur tout le territoire de la ville, moyennant une réglementation appropriée;

d'assouplir les normes minimales relatives au stationnement et au chargement des véhicules pour les ensembles résidentiels.

 

(vi)       Modifier le processus d'examen des demandes d'aménagement en vigueur à la Ville de façon à :

 

a)         Étendre provisoirement l'application des dispositions du Règlement municipal sur le stationnement concernant le règlement financier des exigences de stationnement aux secteurs situés à l'extérieur du territoire de l'ancienne ville d'Ottawa, pour ce qui concerne les propositions de logements abordables.

 

b)         Déléguer au directeur de l'Urbanisme et de l'aménagement le pouvoir d'approuver les demandes de règlement financier des exigences de stationnement moyennant des frais symboliques de un dollar par place de stationnement, dans le cas de la production de logements abordables.

 

c)         Modifier les formulaires de demande afin d'exiger des renseignements sur l'agencement, l'occupation et le prix (de location ou de vente) des logements, dans le cas des aménagements proposés devant contenir des unités d'habitation.

 

 d)        Modifier le Règlement municipal no 451-2001 concernant les autres renseignements ou documents à produire pour certaines demandes d'urbanisme, afin de tenir compte des renseignements supplémentaires mentionnés au paragraphe (c).

 

e)         Exiger que tous les rapports produits par le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement ou les rapports produits en vertu de pouvoirs délégués concernant des demandes d'approbation de plans de lotissement et d'immeubles en copropriété ainsi que des demandes d'approbation de plans d'implantation comportent une évaluation de la manière dont ces demandes permettent d'atteindre les objectifs fixés dans le Plan officiel en matière de logements abordables, si ces demandes prévoient la construction d'unités d'habitation.

 

4.         De donner instruction au personnel de demander aux gouvernements fédéral et provincial :

 

(i)         de permettre aux municipalités, par le biais de la politique provinciale sur l'urbanisme, d'exiger qu'un certain pourcentage minimum des nouveaux logements soient des logements abordables, en usant pour ce faire de divers moyens (désignation de terrains, règlement financier, aménagement hors site, etc.);

(ii)        de permettre l'affectation expresse des redevances d'exploitation au logement abordable;

(iii)       de permettre aux municipalités d'exiger que des terrains soient réservés à la construction de logements abordables, à la condition que le prix du terrain reflète la valeur de celui-ci avec les logements abordables.

(iv)       de prévoir une subvention destinée à compenser la taxe de vente provinciale sur les matériaux de construction utilisés pour la réalisation de logements conçus expressément comme des logements locatifs abordables.

(v)        de revoir le traitement des logements locatifs aux fins de l'impôt sur le revenu et de l'impôt foncier.

 

5.         De donner instruction aux Services aux citoyens d'examiner des façons d'établir et de mettre en œuvre un fonds de fiducie pour le logement dans lequel seraient accumulés les redevances d'exploitation, le montant des règlements financiers des exigences de stationnement et (ou) les contributions foncières faites aux termes de la recommandation 3 (iii) en vue de leur affectation au logement abordable, et de faire rapport au Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement ainsi qu'au Comité de la santé et des services sociaux.

 

6.         De donner instruction aux Services généraux et aux Services aux citoyens de procéder à une évaluation de la politique de priorité au logement afin de s'assurer que la Ville possède une politique efficace et appropriée pour l'aliénation des terrains municipaux excédentaires.               

 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Assumptions and Analysis:

 

At the direction of  Ottawa City Council, staff created an Affordable Housing Working Group to identify ways to achieve affordable housing targets identified in the new Official Plan. The Working Group, comprised of  representatives from the development industry and  not-for-profit housing associations, has met numerous times over the past year and have crafted a  toolbox of practical ways  to reduce housing costs.  The mechanisms identified are primarily intended to improve the development system to facilitate the delivery of affordable market housing.  Some of the tools are already in place while others have been tried on a pilot basis.  Measures such as the use of density bonusing, flexible zoning, alternative development standards and deferral of charges for rental housing were identified and brought forward as recommendations.

 

Staff also have determined that the City does not have the ability to impose mandatory requirements for the provision of affordable housing based on existing Provincial legislation.  Instead, the recommended approach is one of commitment to supporting affordable market housing targets in new development supported by the development tools and incentives and regular monitoring of the degree of success in achieving the targets.  The targets are included in an Official Plan Amendment.

 

Financial Implications:

 

Subject to Council approval, recommendation 3.i will result in lost interest for a period of ten years on the fees and charges that the City will eventually be receiving for any new rental housing projects that may be approved.  With regards to Recommendation 3.ii), the waiving of fees and charges for non profit housing has already been approved as policy through other City Council decisions, therefore there are no new financial implications as a result of this recommendation.

 

Public Consultation/Input:

 

Nine meetings of the Affordable Housing Working Group were held between May, 2003 and March, 2004.

 

RÉSUMÉ

 

Hypothèses et analyse :

 

À la demande du Conseil municipal, le personnel a formé un groupe de travail chargé du logement social qui s'est vu confier pour mandat de déterminer des moyens d'atteindre les objectifs de logements abordables fixés dans le nouveau Plan officiel. Constitué de représentants des promoteurs et des associations de logement sans but lucratif, le Groupe de travail s'est réuni à de multiples reprises au cours de l'année écoulée et il a produit une liste de moyens pratiques de réduire les coûts de logement. Les mécanismes inventoriés visent principalement à améliorer le système d'aménagement afin de faciliter la réalisation de logements abordables. Certains de ces mécanismes ont déjà été mis en place, alors que d'autres font l'objet de projets-pilotes. Au nombre des mesures qui ont été déterminées et recommandées, il convient de mentionner les primes de densité, le zonage flexible, les nouvelles normes d'aménagement et le report de frais pour le logement locatif.

 

Le personnel a également établi que la loi actuelle ne permet pas à la Ville d'imposer des exigences obligatoires pour la production de logements abordables. La démarche recommandée porte plutôt sur un engagement à favoriser l'atteinte des objectifs de logements abordables dans les nouveaux ensembles au moyen de différents mécanismes et mesures d'incitation ainsi que par la surveillance du degré d'atteinte des objectifs. Ceux-ci sont inscrits dans une modification proposée au Plan officiel.

 

Répercussions financières :

 

Si elle est approuvée par le Conseil, la recommandation 3 (i) entraînera une perte d'intérêt pour une période de dix ans par rapport aux frais et droits que la Ville aurait pu toucher pour les nouveaux ensembles de logement locatifs qui pourraient être approuvés. En ce qui concerne la recommandation 3 (ii), le Conseil municipal a déjà, en vertu de décisions antérieures, renoncé aux frais et droits pour les logements sans but lucratif. Cette recommandation n'aurait donc pas de nouvelles répercussions financières.

 

Consultation publique / commentaires :

 

Le Groupe de travail chargé du logement abordable s'est réuni à neuf reprises du mois de mai 2003 au mois de mars 2004.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On February 27th, 2002 City Council approved an Affordable Housing Strategy, an implementation plan for the Mayor's Task Force on Public/Private Partnerships for Affordable Housing and some immediate actions to create more affordable housing within the framework of the new federal Affordable Rental Program.

 

The Affordable Housing Strategy contained a number of specific recommendations targeting both social and market housing. Many recommendations were primarily targeting the provision of housing for those households with very low incomes; the type of housing that requires significant involvement by government (social housing). There were also a number of recommendations that involved land use policies and regulatory tools under the Planning Act, in order to facilitate the development of market rental and ownership housing that is more affordable to those households on moderate incomes who may be experiencing affordability problems.

 

 One of the recommendations directed that the new Official Plan include policies supporting the Affordable Housing Strategy and these were considered in the preparation of the new Official Plan. Another recommendation of the Affordable Housing Strategy directed that, as part of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law review, consideration be given to establishing zoning regulations that would better support the development of affordable housing. As well, the Strategy directed that opportunities for streamlining approvals be identified and a process be defined whereby applications for affordable housing are given priority.

 

At its meeting of April 7, 2003 Planning and Development Committee considered the City's new Official Plan, including a number of policies for affordable housing, many of which support the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Strategy. Several of the policies dealt with the definition of affordable housing, annual housing targets, affordable housing requirements specific to new housing projects and ways to ensure these targets are met. Planning and Development Committee modified the policies proposed by staff. On April 23, 2003, Ottawa City Council approved the Official Plan, however, Council deferred implementation of policies 2.5.2.1 and 2.5.2.2 which refer to targets for the development of affordable housing (see Document 1, Part A) and in so doing directed staff to work with the development industry and other groups having an interest in affordable housing, to determine the means by which the development review and approval process can contribute to achieving the affordable housing targets.  Staff were directed to report back to Council by the end of 2003. 

 

An Affordable Housing Working Group was created with equal representation from the development industry and from housing groups (see Document 2). The Working Group has met on nine occasions between May, 2003 and March`, 2004 and has dealt with a wide range of topics related to the provision of affordable housing.

 

The topics discussed by the Affordable Working Group focused on ways to provide housing affordable to households unable to pay market prices but who are not eligible for assisted housing; factors which contribute to the cost of housing but cannot be altered by the development industry without municipal approval (e.g. servicing requirements, road rights of way); housing design; and a need to create a toolbox of practical ways to reduce housing costs.  Some of the tools discussed have included density bonusing, flexible zoning, and the use of alternative  development standards.  Housing construction costs for both conventional and not-for-profit housing were also investigated. A background paper, entitled "The Housing Affordability Challenge" has been prepared on fifteen such topics and is included in Document 6.

 

DISCUSSION

 

There are limitations to the City's ability to address affordable housing issues in the Official Plan, and the Working Group acknowledged this fact.  In 1989, the Province of Ontario issued the Policy Statement on Land Use Planning for Housing which directed municipalities to have regard to certain matters when formulating their official plans and related planning tools.  In particular, it encouraged all municipalities to establish policies to ensure that at least 25% of new residential units resulting from new development and intensification are affordable.

 

 The current Provincial Policy Statement issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Ontario Planning Act came into effect in 1996. The most significant change to the Policy Statement was the removal of the 25% affordable housing provision.  As a result, there is no legislated authority to require a minimum percentage of all new housing to be affordable. Document 3 details the section on Housing in the Provincial Policy Statement.  Municipalities are encouraged to:

 

(a)        promote housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and lower income households;

 

(b)        support all forms of residential intensification (specifically including secondary dwelling units); and

 

(c)        consider establishing cost-effective development standards for residential development to reduce the cost of housing. 

 

Based on this policy, the onus is on the City to develop and implement approaches to meet local affordable housing needs. The policies in the new Official Plan that were deferred by City Council which address the provision of affordable housing go beyond what is required by the Provincial Policy Statement. The Provincial Policy Statement, however, does not preclude a municipality from advancing policies which will increase the supply of new affordable housing units for both the rental and ownership markets.

 

Recommendation Number 1 - Official Plan Amendment

 

The revisions to the  housing policies in Section 2.5.2 of the Official Plan, as outlined in Document 1, focus principally on encouraging the provision of affordable housing in new development proposals in order to help meet the housing needs of residents who rely on the private market. 

 

As well, two new changes have been made.  Policies 2.5.2.10 and 3.1.1 regarding secondary dwelling units will be modified so as to allow these in duplex buildings; and Policy 5.2.1.6 regarding increased heights and density will allow the contribution of cash or land rather than directly providing community benefits in exchange for increases in height and density.  An explanation for these changes to the Official Plan is provided in Document 1, Part A.

 

Recommendation Number 2 -  Monitoring of Affordable Housing Situation

 

The Annual Development Review is prepared by the Planning and Development Department and provides yearly updates and analysis on economic indicators and demographic statistics, summarizes development activity in the City of Ottawa, and measures these against the City's various policy objectives found in documents such as the Official Plan.  It is intended that related to the affordable housing policies, staff  monitor and report on:

 

 1.        the overall affordable housing situation in Ottawa, including both new and resale ownership housing and the affordability of rental housing; and

 

2.         the degree to which the affordable housing targets for new development contained in the Official Plan have been met.

 

The emphasis in the Official Plan is on targeting the development of affordable market housing that is available to households at the 30th income percentile for rental housing and the 40th income percentile for ownership. Based on the income levels represented by the percentiles, staff are able to calculate the affordable house price and rent for each of those income thresholds. Staff have prepared a housing continuum chart which illustrates this information using 2003 statistics (see Document  4).  This will be updated annually for monitoring purposes and to be used as a guideline for evaluating development applications.

 

Staff also will undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the Official Plan affordable housing policies as part of the 2007 Official Plan review at which time it will be determined if the approach using targets has been successful.

 

Recommendation 3 -  Measures and Tools for Affordable Housing

 

The table contained in Document 5 is a summary of the mechanisms and tools to support the provision of affordable market housing, as directed by the Provincial Policy Statement and the Affordable Housing Strategy.  Document 6 provides more detailed information and the Working Group discussed how these could help the City achieve it's targets for affordable housing.

 

The tools and measures identified are primarily intended to improve the development system to enable the private sector (including not-for-profit developers) to develop affordable market housing.  Improvement in the development system will also be of benefit to the provision of social housing, however, significantly more direct intervention, primarily in the form of direct investment by the City and other levels of government, is required to support development where affordability problems are the greatest (ie. households on the waiting list for assisted housing).

 

As indicated in Document 5, some of these tools are already in place while others have been tried on a pilot basis.  Staff are recommending that the tools and measures listed below be pursued at this time to assist in meeting affordable housing targets in new development. However, the full implementation of these tools and measures need further consideration, given that they have a number of procedural and financial implications for the City. 

 

 (i) - Deferral of Charges for Rental Housing

Developer related fees (building permit fees, development charges, etc.) are paid up front by a developer, i.e. prior to construction and lease-up, and in the case of mid or high rise apartment construction can impact the financial viability of a project.  As an incentive to provide affordable housing at rents below the 30th income percentile, it is proposed such charges be deferred for a 10 year period without interest, but only if 25% or more of the units are provided at rents which fall below the 30th income percentile.  An agreement will be executed between the City and the proponent outlining the terms of the deferral and stipulating that in the event of non-compliance with the specified terms, fees and levies shall be payable immediately with interest.

 

(ii) - Waiving of Application Fees for Non-Profit Housing

The continued waiver of planning application fees, building permit fees, parkland levy and development charges will help ensure the financial viability of affordable housing projects sponsored by non-profit housing groups.  The Parkland By-laws of the former municipalities will need to be amended to clarify that parkland levies are waived for non-profit housing projects.  It is intended that staff will continue to explore mechanisms by which to defer, reduce or waive the payment of such fees and charges for other affordable housing projects.

 

(iii) - Implementation of Bonus Zoning

Density bonusing is a mechanism that allows increases in heights or density above what is permitted in zoning by-laws in exchange for the provision of certain facilities and services that benefit the community.  Facilities and services may include daycare, recreational facilities, community centres or affordable housing.   Typically, developers make application to add more floor area, units or additional height in return for the provision of an identified service or facility negotiated with the City. 

 

Section 5.2.1 of the new City of Ottawa Official Plan authorizes the use of the bonusing provisions of Section 37 of the Planning Act.  Staff will have to establish an implementation framework that  lays out which type of development project would be considered suitable for density bonusing and the basis for calculating the public benefit in order to ensure consistency and clarity in the use of bonusing.  Other questions that will have to be addressed include the exchanges and their value and how to calculate the cash-in-lieu of that value.

 

(iv) - Review of Alternative Engineering Standards

The Affordable Housing Working Group has identified alternative development standards as a way to reduce the cost of housing.  In 2003, Council directed the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department to undertake a Capital Standards Review for public works infrastructure.  An interim report was presented to Council in February 2004 and a final report is expected to be presented in the near future.  This ongoing review will identify opportunities that could translate into reduced housing costs.

 

The Capital Standards Review is intended to provide the framework for how the city can reduce infrastructure related costs. It is anticipated that through this review, a number of opportunities will be identified that will support the reduction in infrastructure costs.  The implementation of these opportunities will be carried out over the next few years and consultation with the development industry has already been initiated.

(v) - Direction of New Zoning By-law Regarding Residential Uses and Regulations

Staff is preparing the new harmonized zoning by-law, and there are numerous opportunities to include provisions which may reduce costs associated with residential development as well as ensure greater housing choice in residential zones and affordable housing for special needs groups.

 

(vi) a) and b) - Use of Cash-in-lieu of Parking to Facilitate the Provision of Affordable Housing

The current cash-in-lieu of parking by-law applies only to the former City of Ottawa. By extending the by-law to other areas of the new City, and to affordable housing projects only, this will provide additional flexibility to deal with  parking reductions for these projects.  Delegated approval authority and no appeal process in the case of affordable housing projects will expedite the processing of these applications. 

 

(vii) c) and d) - Requirement for Information on Affordable Housing in Development Applications

To monitor the Official Plan affordable housing targets for new development, information will have to be provided at the application stage to identify if affordable housing units are being proposed.  Development application forms will be amended to require information on proposed housing mix, tenure, prices, etc. Through the decision-making process for planning applications, the City will ensure that consideration is given to the provision of affordable housing in development proposals.

 

Recommendation 4 -  Lobbying Effort

 

In many ways, the City is limited in its ability to fully utilize planning tools to ensure the provision of affordable housing.  Changes are needed to provincial legislation and to provincial policy documents to provide municipalities with the means to meet local housing goals and objectives. The housing industry is also facing challenges trying to assist those in need of decent affordable housing.  Financial incentives and tax relief must be provided by the senior levels of government to encourage the development of new  purpose built affordable rental housing by the private sector.

 

Recommendation 5 - Housing Trust Fund

 

Housing Trusts are used in other jurisdictions to provide a means of capturing and reallocating payments or other funding that is received by local government for the express purpose of investing in affordable housing.  In the context of this proposed policy, a Housing Trust would receive lands or cash provided in lieu of developing the necessary number of affordable housing units, and would ensure that such funds are directed to their intended use rather than adding to the City's register of land holdings, or deposited into general reserves.  While there may be other ways to ensure that such lands or cash are targeted to affordable housing, a Housing Trust could have the added benefit of providing a mechanism for directing other funding or donations towards the development of affordable housing, as well as providing a legal mechanism to ensure long-term affordability agreements are in place without unnecessarily encumbering the City.  For the most part, the City only needs to be involved in such agreements when significant public investment has been made in order to gain low-income affordability. 

Recommendation 6 - Housing First Policy

 

The City has implemented policies and procedures to allow access to surplus lands for affordable housing, but in many cities, Housing First policies go beyond disposal of civic assets, towards a concentrated program of facilitating affordable development.  Examples include inclusion of  housing in other civic facilities; development of a more active land acquisition program to secure opportunities for affordable housing development; changes to the tax arrears process to enable more effective disposal of arrears properties to meet civic policies for affordable housing;  and land banking, whereby a pool of lands for affordable housing are assembled to help support development interest.  The  Province of Ontario is considering similar steps, so a review of the current policy, effectiveness, and improvements is warranted and appropriate in the context of the recommendations of this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Notification of the public meeting (the Committee meeting) to consider the proposed Official Plan amendments was published in The Citizen and Le Droit. All members of the Affordable Housing Working Group and as well, public bodies, were notified and provided a copy of this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Subject to Council approval, recommendation 3.i will result in lost interest for a period of ten years on the fees and charges that the City will eventually be receiving for any new rental housing projects that may be approved.  With regards to Recommendation 3.ii), the waiving of fees and charges for non profit housing has already been approved as policy through other City Council decisions, therefore there are no new financial implications as a result of this recommendation.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1 -   Official Plan Amendment

Document 2 -   Affordable Housing Working Group

Document 3 -   Provincial Policy Statement - Housing

Document 4 -   Housing Continuum - 2003

Document 5 -   Framework and Tools for Affordable Market Housing

Document 6 -   Background Paper, "The Affordability Challenge" (distributed separately and on file with the City Clerk)

 


DISPOSITION

 

1.         Development Services Department to:

i)          provide notice of adoption of Official Plan amendment by-law, and

ii)         report back to Planning and Development Committee on the implementation of the density bonusing provisions of the Official Plan.

 

2.         Corporate Services Department, Legal Services Branch to prepare all the amending by-laws and to bring adopting by-laws to City Council for enactment.

 

3.         People Services Department, Housing Branch to investigate ways of establishing and implementing a Housing Trust Fund and report back to Planning and Environment Committee and  Health and Social Services Committee.

 

4.         Corporate Services Department, Real Property Asset Management Branch and People Services, Housing Branch to undertake a review of the Housing First policy for the disposal of civic lands for affordable housing.

 

            Document 1

 

DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT

 

AMENDMENT No. __ TO THE CITY OF OTTAWA OFFICIAL PLAN

 

PART A -THE PREAMBLE

 

Part A of this Official Plan Amendment does not constitute part of this amendment.

 

PURPOSE:

 

The purpose of amendment number ___ is to modify Section 2.5.2 Affordable Housing of the Official Plan. Policies 1, 2 and 3. will be deleted and replaced with three re-written policies. In addition, Policy 2.5.2.10 and 3.1.1 Secondary Dwelling Units and Policy 5.2.1.6 Increases in Height and Density By-law will be amended. These changes will clarify new policies which are intended to provide opportunities for creating new affordable housing units.

 

The replacement policies will encourage the production of affordable units in new residential development and redevelopment to meet an annual target for both rental and ownership housing. The targets are to be supported through the specific application of tools and measures to encourage the development of affordable housing .

 

LOCATION:

 

The lands affected by this amendment include all the lands within the City of Ottawa.

 

BASIS:

 

Existing Policies

 

The three Council approved (on April 27, 2003) Official Plan policies that are proposed to be replaced by this amendment are as follows:

 

"1.        Affordable housing is defined as housing, either ownership or rental, for which a low-or moderate-income household pays no more than 30 % of its gross annual income.  The city has set a target of 25% of housing units available each year to be affordable to households at the 30th income percentile for rental and the 40th income percentile for ownership housing.

 

2.         A target of 25% of the total new units in all developments projects will be affordable housing, of which 15% will be targeted to households up to the 30th income percentile and the remainder of the 25% will be targeted to households up to the 40th income percentile.  Recognizing that the 15% target may create challenges for some developments, the City will consider alternative means to ensure that the target is met.

 

For example:

 

a)         Density bonusing could allow for certain areas of the development to provide housing in a more dense and therefore less expensive form;

b)         A developer may opt to meet the requirement on alternative sites where that may be appropriate and the housing will be made available within a similar time frame;

c)         The developer may contribute sufficient land to the City, which will permit the City to find alternative ways to meet the target.

 

3.         The City will work with the development industry and other groups having an interest in affordable housing, to determine the means by which the development review and approval process can contribute to achieving these requirements.  Strategies will be recommended to City Council by the end of  2003 on this matter."

 

Context of Amendment

 

In the Amendment:

 

Income levels and target rents and prices  to determine affordability on the housing continuum are to be revised annually based on economic and market indicators.

 

An annual target has been included for new residential development whereby 25% of all new rental housing is to be affordable to households up to the 30th income percentile and 25% of all new ownership housing is to be affordable to households up to the 40th income percentile.

 

The range of  incentives and supports to promote affordable housing is expanded.

 

Secondary dwelling units are to be permitted in duplex buildings.

 

The City will accept cash in return for increases in density and height.

 

Changes to Policies 2.5.2.1; 2.5.2.2; and 2.5.2.3

 

As directed by City Council at its meeting of April 23, 2003, city staff in consultation with representatives of the non-profit housing sector and the development industry have investigated a variety of ways in which the affordable housing targets in the Official Plan can be achieved. The City must have regard to the provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning Act.  This document does not cite a minimum requirement for affordable housing in new developments nor an obligation on the part of developers to provide such housing.  The Provincial Policy Statement does however make mention of pursuing ways to reduce the cost of housing and thereby making it more affordable.

 

 Experience elsewhere has demonstrated that imposing mandatory requirements for the provision of affordable housing requires substantial regulatory and financial backing. For example, the City of Vancouver has had a requirement whereby 20% of the units in larger, new residential developments must be affordable.  Vancouver, however, is a Charter City as are the cities of Winnipeg and Montreal.  Charter cities are governed by their own stand alone legislation which gives them their own specific powers and responsibilities in recognition of their unique needs, rather than being subject to a municipal act and planning act of general application to other municipalities throughout the province.

 

The City is limited in its ability to enforce and support such requirements and for this reason is taking an approach of commitment to supporting affordable market housing targets rather than extracting them from all developments.  This approach will be backed up through the application of a number of development tools and incentives and regular monitoring of the degree of success in achieving the targets.

 

Staff have concluded that it would be premature to set a requirement for a specific amount of housing in all development projects to be affordable.  The current requirement in Policy 2.5.2.2 that 15% of the total new units in all development projects be targeted to households up to the 30th income percentile and the remainder of the 25% target be for households up to the 40th income percentile is to be deleted.  Since it is unlikely ownership housing can be provided at the 30th income percentile, retention of this policy would mean that a portion of new units in all projects would have to be built as rental.  Larger developers perhaps would be able to meet the 15% target on alternative sites in some instances or provide land-in-lieu to the City, but it would be difficult for other smaller builders.

 

Key regulatory policies and implementation practices of the City should be aligned with its commitment to promote the development of affordable housing. An enhanced development system which incorporates opportunities for flexible zoning, density bonusing, alternative engineering standards, and other land uses (e.g. secondary dwelling units) can readily be integrated into ongoing city work.  As well, the development of the new Zoning By-law and the preparation of community design plans may be able to identify specific opportunities to encourage the provision of affordable housing.  Measures initiated by the City to create affordable housing may not however, show immediate results.  Zoning changes, for example may take a few years to be fully implemented.

 

Changes to Policy 2.5.2.10 and 3.1.1

 

The secondary rental housing market is an important source of affordable housing particularly for students and other low-income households.  The City of Ottawa Official Plan policy for generally permitted land uses currently supports the creation of secondary dwelling units in a detached or semi-detached dwelling, subject to zoning regulations.  Permitting one secondary dwelling  unit  to locate in a duplex building, while recognizing that this will have a limited impact on overall affordability, does provide an additional opportunity to create affordable rental units.   In terms of  the impact this would have on concerns over density, it  would be comparable, if not lower, than permitting a secondary dwelling unit in each half of a semi-detached dwelling, which is already permitted in the Official Plan.

 Changes to Policy 5.2.1.6

 

An alternative for developers unable to directly provide affordable housing in return for increases in height and density is a land or cash contribution.  The taking of cash (and land) in exchange for approvals under Section 37 of the Planning Act has been used successfully by the City of Toronto to build thousands of new affordable housing units.  Cash proceeds from density bonusing agreements would be placed in a Housing Trust Fund or a similar municipal account for use in the development of affordable housing or special needs housing by not-for-profit organizations.  The additional wording of this policy will provide these alternatives upon implementation of the bonus zoning provisions of the Official Plan.

 

 

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

 

1.         Introduction

 

All of this part of the  document entitled Part B - The Amendment, consisting of the following text constitutes Amendment No. __ to the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

 

2.         Details

 

AMENDMENT NO. __ , OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA

 

The Official Plan of the City of Ottawa is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.         That Policies 2.5.2.1.,  2.5.2.2  and 2.5.2.3 are hereby deleted and replaced with the  following:

 

2.5.2.1 Affordable housing is defined as housing, either ownership or rental, for  which a low or moderate income household pays no more than 30% of its gross annual income.  Income levels and target rents and prices will be determined by the City on an annual basis.

 

2.5.2.2 The City will encourage the production of affordable housing in new residential development and redevelopment to meet an annual target of:

a)         25% of all new rental housing is to be affordable to households up to the 30th income percentile,

b)         25% of all  new ownership housing is to be affordable to households up to the 40th  income percentile.

 

2.5.2.3 The City will encourage and promote the achievement of the targets by providing a toolkit of planning incentives and direct supports, including but not limited to:  density bonusing; density transfer; deferral or waiving of fees and charges; alternative development standards; land; and more flexible zoning.  Where the support includes municipal investment, it will be associated with mechanisms to ensure the long term affordability of the units.

 

2.         Policy 2.5.2.10 be amended to delete the word "both" and add after "semi-detached dwellings", the following ", and duplex buildings".

 

3.         That Policy 3.1.1 be amended to add the following after "semi-detached dwelling":

                        "or duplex building".

 

4.         That Policy 5.2.1.6 be amended to add the following at the end of "Provision of new affordable housing units" in 6(e):

            ", land for affordable housing, or, at the discretion of the owner, cash-in-lieu of affordable housing units or land;"

 

 

 AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKING GROUP     Document 2

 

Co-chairs:

Dennis Jacobs - Director of Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy in the Planning and Development Department, and

Russell Mawby - Director of Housing in the People Services Department.      

 

Members:

 

Elisabeth Arnold - former Councillor Ward 14

Catherine Boucher - Co-ordinator,  Centretown Citizen's Ottawa Corporation

Doug Brousseau - Senior Policy Advisor, Mayor's Office

Jim Burghout - Manager, Claridge Homes

Lyn Carson - General Manager, Nepean Housing Corporation

Sharon Chisholm - Co-Chair, Health and Social Services Advisory Committee

Jim Colizza - Architect

Alex Cullen - Councillor Ward 7

Pierre Dufresne - Manager, Land Development, Tartan Homes

Debbie Edwards - Development Consultant

Brian Gifford - General Manager, Gloucester Non-Profit Housing Corporation

Don Kennedy - Development Consultant

Alex Munter - former Councillor Ward 4

Jack Stirling - Senior Vice President - Minto Developments Inc.

Peter Trotscha - Development Consultant

 

 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT ON HOUSING       Document 3

 

"Provision will be made in all planning jurisdictions for a full range of housing types and densities to meet projected demographic and market requirements of current and future residents of the housing market area by:

 

a)         maintaining at all times at least a 10-year supply of land designated and available for new residential development and residential intensification;

 

b)         maintaining at all times, where new development is to occur, at least a 3-year supply of residential units with servicing capacity in draft approved or registered plans

 

c)         encouraging housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and lower income households;

 

d)         encouraging all forms of residential intensification in parts of built-up areas that have sufficient existing or planned infrastructure to create a potential supply of new housing units available from residential intensification; and

 

e)         establishing cost-effective development standards for new residential development and redevelopment to reduce the cost of housing."

 


CITY OF OTTAWA HOUSING CONTINUUM – 2003                                           Document 4

 


FRAMEWORK AND TOOLS FOR AFFORDABLE MARKET HOUSING           Document 5

 

Provincial Housing Policies and Affordable Housing Strategy 

 

 

What Tools Can the City Use?

 

 

Discussion

 

 

Status

To ensure an adequate supply of land available for housing and to maintain a supply of residential units with servicing capacity

§         provide a 10-year supply of land designated for residential development

 

§         Official Plan (OP) policy  2.2.1.2  and 2.2.1.3c) regarding the urban area boundary provides for sufficient land to meet the City’s 20 year requirement for housing, employment and other purposes.

§         in place

 

 

§         maintain a 3 year supply of units with servicing capacity in draft approved or registered plans

§         OP policy 2.2.1.3c) requires review every 5 years to assess situation and determine need to designate additional lands.

§         in place 

 

§         give, sell or lease surplus municipal lands for the development of affordable housing

§         City’s Housing First strategy   directs that if not required for municipal purposes, as a priority, land should be sold to non profit and co-operative groups for affordable housing with grants provided to off-set the market price.

§         in place  but to be reviewed

 

 

 

§         Action Ottawa program uses City land leased for minimal sum provided it continues to be used for affordable housing.

§         parcels of land on Richmond Road and Meridian Drive leased to non-profit groups through Action Ottawa

 

§         increase supply of land for affordable housing through municipal land acquisition and banking

§         Not currently being undertaken except for surplus properties owned by federal and provincial governments which are to be considered by the City for acquisition for affordable housing.

§         first parcel of Federal surplus land recently transferred to the City for affordable housing

 

To encourage housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and lower incomes

 

 

§         establish inclusionary planning policies

§         Experience has shown inclusionary planning policies require substantial regulatory and financial backing to be successful.  The City is limited in its ability to enforce and support requirements.  City’s approach is to support affordable housing targets and provide toolkit of planning incentives and other mechanisms.

§         staff have assembled a toolkit of measures to be investigated or implemented as described below

 

 

 

§         The revised OP policies will encourage production of affordable housing in new residential development and redevelopment to meet annual target of 25% of all new rental housing to be affordable to households up to the 30th income percentile  and 25% of all new ownership housing to be affordable to households up to the 40th income percentile.  Regularly monitor the achievement of the target, and take corrective actions as required.

§         Planning and Environment Committee to consider OP amendment on revised affordable housing policies in June 2004

 

 

 

§         require mix of housing types and higher densities on vacant or substantially vacant lands

 

 

§         OP policy  3.6.4.4(a) for Developing Communities requires a mix of units (at least 40% multiples of which at least 10% are apartments) and an overall average density (29 units per hectare) through the approval of Community Design Plans.

§         to be reflected in  Community  Design Plans for Developing Communities over time as they are completed and approved by City Council

 

 

 

§         New Zoning By-law will also develop new residential and mixed- use zones and regulations to facilitate the achievement of required mix and densities.

§         preparation of new harmonized zoning by-law underway

 

 

§         protect the supply of rental housing

§         OP Policy 4.5.1 limits the conversion of rental housing to ownership when vacancy rate is low and rents are below the average market rents, heritage buildings are exempt.

§         approved and in force

 

 

 

§         It should be noted that a recent Court of Appeal decision related to the ability of municipalities to include condominium conversion policies in Official Plans confirms the legality of such a policy in the Official Plan.

 

 

§         protect existing supply of residential units

§         OP Policy 4.5.5 directs the application of demolition control throughout the City which will prevent the issuance of permits for the demolition of residential units unless replacement units are provided.

§         staff to examine how demolition control process in Provincial Planning Act can be used to control the loss of affordable housing

 

 

§         demonstration projects/pilot projects using tools

§         Could be undertaken in partnership with development industry to test different housing forms that would be affordable.

§         to be explored

 

To encourage all forms of residential intensification in parts of built –up areas to create potential of new housing units

§         permit secondary dwelling units

 

§         OP policy 2.5.2.10 directs that secondary dwelling units in single and semi-detached dwellings be permitted in all parts of the City.

§         OP to be amended to permit  one secondary dwelling unit in a duplex building in addition to single and semi-detached dwellings

 

 

§         New Zoning By-law will include secondary dwelling use in all single and semi-detached dwellings as a new permitted use where currently not permitted and establish  regulations to limit the size of the unit to less than one-half of the primary dwelling size.

§         new comprehensive zoning by-law underway

 

 

 

§         Need to develop an incentive program to encourage homeowners to add secondary suites.

§         to be explored

 

 

§         implement density bonusing, including transfer of density rights

 

§         Has not been previously used in any of the former municipalities, but the new OP enables the use of density bonusing to meet affordable housing objectives.

§         included as a recommendation in the staff report

 

 

 

§         Requires further evaluation and specific directives for implementation.

 

 

§         discourage downzonings of residential land

 

§         OP policy 2.2.3.6 indicates that eliminating residential apartments as a permitted use in the Zoning By-law, or to change the permitted use so the effect is to down-zone a site, will not be permitted to ensure no net loss of apartment potential or unit yield potential for other multiple housing types.

§         to be reflected in new comprehensive zoning by-law

To establish cost-effective development standards for new residential development and redevelopment to reduce the cost of housing

§         apply alternative development standards for:

 

§         One demonstration project undertaken in former Gloucester and evaluation completed.

 

 

§         engineering and servicing standards

 

§         Transportation, Utilities and Public Works preparing standards for utilities, roadways etc. that will provide opportunities to assess and incorporate ADS.

§         Capital Standards Review for public work infrastructure underway

 

§         planning regulations or guidelines

 

§         Site Plan Control manual to be developed to assess and implement Alternative Development Standards.

§         underway

 

 

§         New Comprehensive Zoning By-law will make changes that can indirectly affect the cost of housing by:

§         underway, to be completed early in 2006

 

 

-     reducing and eliminating ineffective zoning regulations

-     introducing new zoning approaches for areas such as mixed use centres, and developing communities

-     allowing greater mix of housing types within zoning designations

-     permitting smaller lots, lot frontages and setbacks

-     considering permitting medium density infill in low density zones

 

 

 

 

-         reducing parking and loading requirements for residential developments.

 

To remove tax and regulatory barriers for affordable housing

§         waive, reduce  or defer development charges

 

§         Former Region, Ottawa and Nepean exempted non-profit housing from development charges.

§         the waiving of development charges for non-profit housing currently in effect and proposed to continue

 

 

 

§         Former Ottawa waived development charges on residential development downtown.

 

 

 

§         There has been deferral of development charges for some rental apartment construction (ie. Kanata).

§         deferral of fees for purpose built rental housing is included as recommendation  in staff report

 

 

§         The use of development charge exemptions and deferrals to be reviewed.

§         Development Charges By-law review, to be completed by mid-2004

 

§         exemptions, reductions or phase -in property taxes

 

§         The City in 2002 created a new tax class resulting in taxing new multi-residential rental developments at residential rather than commercial rates for a 35 year period.

§         new multi-residential rental tax class in place

To reduce development costs for affordable housing

§         exemptions from planning application and  building permit fees and parkland levies

 

§         City has waived building and planning application fees and parkland levies for non-profit housing.

§         in place for non-profit housing, to be explored for other affordable housing projects

 

 

§         give priority to application processing timelines for affordable housing

§         Not currently in effect, but will be supported upon submission of applications for affordable housing.

 

 

§         provide loans at favourable rates, loan guarantees or grants for new affordable projects, repairs to existing projects and retrofit conversions

§         City’s Action Ottawa program makes grants and loans available for affordable housing.

 

§         Capital Facilities By-law in place to provide incentives on a case-by-case basis

 

 

 

§         Capital Facilities By-law in place to provide incentives (waiver of development charges, fees, taxes, provision of land) in exchange for affordability to low-income levels.

 

 

 

§         Loan guarantees not currently available.

 

 

§         make information available on funding for affordable housing

§         Need to create an information service within the City of Ottawa to coordinate and provide information on affordable housing.

§         to be explored

 

 

§         assist providers of affordable housing to access and negotiate the development system

 

§         Provide facilitation and mediation to resolve public concerns and objections to development applications for affordable housing.

§         to be explored

 

 


AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES - Official plan amendment and implementation

POLITIQUES SUR LE LOGEMENT ABORDABLE - MODIFICATION ET MISE EN OEUVRE DU PLAN OFFICIEL

ACS2004-DEV-POL-0002                                                                        city-wide

 

Chair Hume began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

 

Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management, Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, Stan Wilder, Planner, Alain Miguelez, Planner, Russell Mawby, Director, Housing, Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, and Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 20 May 2004.  Subsequent to a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation, a discussion ensued and the following summarizes the main points raised and clarifications.  A copy of the presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.  In his introduction Mr. Jacobs thanked the dedicated group who represented all sectors involved as detailed in the report.  The process was not intended to address the critical issues related to publicly supported or social housing, which is an area that is clearly recognized as requiring resources beyond what this group was tasked to analyze.  This analysis focused on the low end of market housing, both rental and ownership, which includes new construction and existing resale housing supply.

·        The proposal before Committee would be consistent with other municipalities in Ontario.  All Municipalities recognize the limitations faced and endeavour to get on with the job of delivering affordable housing.  There are examples in other municipalities with a more aggressive stance but these have the legislative.

·        Toronto was looking at a percentage (25% of new large subdivisions for affordable housing) as a requirement of the developer, with its entire OP Housing Chapter under appeal and has not yet determined how to implement their policy.  It relates to very large tract subdivisions and there have been questions from the Province as to whether it is a valid interpretation of the Provincial Policy Statement.  Part of the issue is setting targets and being able to implement them.

·        On Recommendation 3 iii), in assessing whether or not a development should be increased in height or density, it is not solely for the benefit of providing affordable housing, but also on whether it meets other policies in the OP.  Those policies include the impact on the local community.  Decisions are not based solely on one factor and any recommendation coming forward in support of an increase in height or density for the purpose of providing cash-in-lieu for affordable housing would also need to take into account the implication of that development on the neighbourhood.


 

·        On p. 24, Section 2.5.2.2, staff is recommending a target - a rental project, separate from an ownership project, would set as a target that 25% of all new rental housing is to be affordable up to the 30th income percentile; for an ownership project, it is to be affordable to households up to the 40th income percentile - translating to a house price of $181,000.  The existing policy states 25% of the total new units in all development projects will be affordable, with 15% targeted to households up to the 30th income percentile and the remainder targeted to households up to the 40th income percentile.  Upon reflection staff altered this policy.  The reason being that by asking that 15% be targeted up to the 30th income percentile would force the private industry to build a significant amount of rental; e.g. the house price at the 30th income percentile would be very difficult to achieve at $141,000.  It was deemed unreasonable to break out that 25% and staff removed it from the policy.

·        This was not characterized as weakening the policy, but reflects what is feasible.  As a result of the analysis, staff is not in a position to implement the original proposal.  It is not practical and staff proposed an alternative that will set the groundwork for improving affordability and for future amendments when there is greater legislative authority.  In today’s environment, the proposal put forward is the only practical approach.

·        The City would like to achieve more rental accommodation, but there is no ability to direct, enforce or require the construction of a particular type of land tenure.

 

Vice-Chair Feltmate Chaired this portion of the item.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Sharon Chisholm, Chair, Health and Social Services Advisory Committee (HSSAC), was a member of the Affordable Housing Working Group representing HSSAC.  In terms of the report other than the OPA, she would leave that to the Social Housing developers to discuss the various points and was totally in agreement with their recommendations.  Her main concern and that of HSSAC is that inclusive neighbourhoods and communities are built (that means inclusive of different races, income groups, age groups, household configurations – to build healthy neighbourhoods).  Ms. Chisolm provided a written submission outlining concerns in an e-mail dated 7 June 2004, which was circulated to the Committee and is held on file with the City Clerk.  She had two main issues:  “1) It provides incentives for affordable housing, but does not “require” it be built; and, 2)


It unbundled the definition of affordable housing.  We had supported a policy that required that all new developments had 25% of their units affordable with at least 15% affordable to households at or below the 30th income percentile.  The staff report says that it should be 25% for the 30th percentile where it is rental.  This means that developers could meet the requirements with 25% of units selling for about $180,000.  And the units could be as small as bachelor size.”  Ms. Chisolm circulated a Journal that talks about the connection between health and housing – “Canadian Housing /Habitation Canadienne – Winter/hiver 2004 – The Health and Housing Connection/La santé et le logement.”  Ms. Chisolm emphasized her opposition to the second issue and urged the Committee to reject the part of the staff report that speaks to the OPA and return to what was approved by Council in December 2003 and at the same time move forward with the Province under this consultation to ensure there is enabling legislation in place that will allow the City to build the kind of communities we want.

 

Catherine Boucher and Brian Gifford, members, Affordable Housing Working Group, provided a comprehensive written submission, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Ms. Boucher indicated that she and Mr. Gifford were present to support many of the recommendations in the staff report and will suggest minor changes to strengthen some of the language with respect to some of the “carrots” and strengthening issues around the length of the affordability.  The submission centred around the following suggested changes, along with a rationale; concurrences are not delineated below:

·        Recommendation 1, OP Amendment (OPA) – that article 2.5.2.2 be replaced to read:  The City will require the production of affordable housing in new residential development and redevelopment such that annual production provides for 25% of the total new units to be affordable housing, with at least 15% affordable to households up to the 30th income percentile and the remainder of the 25% affordable to households up to the 40th income percentile.

·        Recommendation 3 i) – support and strengthen – change the period of deferment and affordability from 10 to 20 years.

·        Recommendation 3 ii) – split, support and strengthen

Split “Explore mechanisms…” from the first part to make a separate point.

Add to second part “..if the development is for homeownership, the units must be affordable on re-sale as well.”

·        Recommendation 3 iv) – support and add a requirement to consult.  Add – “after consulting with private and non-profit developers.”

·        Recommendation 3 v) – support and strengthen – amend it to read “Ensure that the new harmonized Zoning By-law:  a. promotes…”

·        Recommendation 3 vi) – strengthen

Add to c):  the length of time any affordable units will remain affordable and what mechanism will be used to achieve this”

Add to e):  including the length of time any affordable units will remain affordable and what mechanism will be used to achieve this”

·        Recommendation 4 – support and add to 2 points

Add to 4 i):  “to be affordable to the 40th income percentile, with 15% affordable to the 30th income percentile using a variety..”

Add to 4 v:  with full consultation with affordable housing organizations such as ONPHA, CHFC AND CHRA”

Add a new point between 4 i) and 4 ii) to read:  Give municipalities zoning authority through changes to section 34 of the Planning Act to fulfill the affordable housing objectives in the Provincial Planning Policy Statement”.

Add to 4 iv):  and permanently affordable ownership housing”

Add a new point between 4 iv) and 4 v) to read:  provide a GST offset grant or exemption on construction materials used in affordable, purpose-built rental housing and permanently affordable ownership housing”

·        Recommendation 5 – support and add reps on oversight board – Add “recommendations to include an oversight board including community representatives”

·        Recommendation 6 – support and strengthen – add the following:  “…Housing First policy and make recommendations to ensure the City has an effective, transparent and appropriate policy…”

 

Dennis Carr, Centretown Affordable Housing Development Corporation (CAHDCO) provided a detailed presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  CAHDCO was established in 1996 with a mandate to create affordable homeownership and to act as development consultants to other non-profit groups.  He addressed the Committee with the affordable homeownership mandate in mind.  While they were not officially on the Mayor’s Affordable Housing Working Group, they were asked to provide input at several meetings.  His presentation posited that CAHDCO was able to meeting its affordability targets.  The suggestions are noted below:

·        On Recommendation, he concurred with previous delegation on strengthening this recommendation to require as opposed to target.

·        Recommendation 3 ii) – amended to waive fees for affordable homeownership projects that are affordable on future re-sales.

·        Recommendation 3 iv) – support and in addition fees and charges under the jurisdiction of the Engineering Branch should be waived for affordable projects.

·        Recommendation 3 vi), c & e – add – include length of time any affordable units will remain affordable and the mechanisms used to achieve this.

·        Recommendation 6 – amend to direct Corporate Services to respect the Housing First policy and make recommendations to ensure the City has an effective, transparent and appropriate policy for the disposal of surplus municipal land.

 


Responding to Councillor Hunter on parking spaces rented out in his particular development, Mr. Carr explained that of the 15 parking spaces 6 were sold at the market price for condominium parking space and 9 were given to the condominium.  The condominium rents them out to unit owners, which provide an income stream, lowering condominium costs.  Councillor Hunter received confirmation that the $136,000 purchase price did not include a parking space and posited that could be a solution to affordable housing.  Mr. Carr was not confident how practical that would be in areas where a car is a necessity.  It is typical in the condominium market to sell the parking space separately.  What is not typical is lowering the monthly costs through the revenue stream.

 

Jim Burghout, Claridge Homes, was a member of the Working Group, ostensibly as a member of the Homebuilders, but would be offering a more personal perspective since the Homebuilders would provide their own comments.  The report is well-crafted and balances the community need for affordable housing and the practical realities the industry must operate within as well as the legislative environment for City Council.  Although there is a belief the industry is not interested in promoting affordable housing, it does make good marketing sense to offer affordable housing since the pool of buyers is much greater.  The higher the price, the shallower the pool of buyers and the more volatile the market.  He supported the OP targets and staff incentives with one exception; that being the first three items in Section 4, which he would address.  There are many market forces that affect a developer’s ability to meet the pricing criteria; e.g. land cost, servicing, municipal fees, contracting prices of the day, interest rates; all of which directly impact a project.  To impose a quota or requirement that sets a price to this product is very problematic because in some cases it is not doable.  In that vein, the downloading of responsibility and funding over the last 10 years and the strong desire to download further onto a specific segment of the market place, being private builders, has created considerable frustration for anyone associated with affordable housing.  It is counter-intuitive and counter-productive.  To touch on earlier comments by other members of the Working Group, Ms. Chisolm spoke of an inclusive community and there will not be any argument from most of those in the development community, but having an inclusive community does not mean having cheap units along with expensive units.  It means having a variety of types and size of units; having seniors housing with family housing; having a full range of types and sizes.  It does not mean mixing a specific target range of prices.  There have been successful examples at Claridge and not in others; again, it goes back to what he said earlier about the various forces that act on a project.  CAHDCO should be applauded as an example of what can be done, but it is not a model that can be accomplished across the City.

 


Murray Chown, Board of Directors, Gord Lorimer, Board of Directors (and Barry Hobin and Associates), and Les Scott (former Mayor, City of Pembroke), Executive Director, Habitat for Humanity National Capital Region (Habitat).  Mr. Lorimer explained that Habitat is a Christian housing initiative serving the working poor with a singular objective of eliminating poverty housing around the world.  The Habitat model runs on partnerships, which include partnering with businesses, faith groups, municipalities and individuals in the building of homes.  It involves the donation of land, materials, cash and time.  The partnership also involves partnering with selected families who commit to the investment of their own time – 250 hours for a single-parent family; 500 hours for a two-adult family.  When built, the houses are then bought by the families with the house value assessed at 80% of the appraised market value.  The families take out a long term, no-interest mortgage.  The clientship is within the 30th percentile.  22 homes have currently been built in the Ottawa area with plans to build 6 homes in 2004, 2 currently under construction in Hintonburg.  It is their objective to build 50 homes over the next 5 years.

 

Mr. Chown explained that Habitat has the tools, skills and ability to build affordable housing in the City and their objective is to build a house, all costs in, for approximately $140,000.  He chairs the Land Acquisition Committee, which is challenged with the difficult task of finding sites.  There are two sources of land; the public sector and the private sector.  There have been many discussions with senior staff from Real Estate Property Asset Management Branch (RPAM) and the Housing Department and the system the City has in place for disposing of land does not assist them.  The process and programs presently in place are geared very much towards rental and not home ownership housing.  There are a number of agencies interested in providing affordable housing in the form of ownership who encountered difficulty acquiring land.  He suggested the Committee direct staff to look at options or the ability to modify policies or strategies to make land available to providers of affordable housing in the form of home ownership.  On the notion of windfall to purchasers of affordable housing, a family placed in a Habitat unit is under obligation to sell back to Habitat, not the open market.  That is done to retain control of those units in perpetuity.  The other source for land is the private sector and the report before Committee does not provide any form of incentive or motivation that would encourage private sector developers to partner with providers of affordable housing.  His comments should not be interpreted to insinuate that land should be donated.  The message conveyed is that the City expects developers to build affordable housing, which is not necessarily the business they are in, although there are players that provide affordable housing.  The City’s role, through the development process and reports such as the one before the Committee, is to put in place a process which will facilitate the partnering between the suppliers of affordable housing and developers in this community.  He asked that staff be encouraged to look at methods and processes to encourage that partnership.

 


Mr. Scott advised that through the City, Habitat has a pre-built warehouse on Bayview Avenue for the storage of materials close to their development.  Following up from
Mr. Chown, he referred to p. 29 – tools the City can use and underscored the third bullet; and, not necessarily give, but sell or lease surplus municipal lands for the development of affordable housing.  If that could happen, he was sure Habitat could take it from there.

 

Acting Chair Feltmate asked if Habitat had the opportunity to feed comments to the Working Group prior to the report being written.  Mr. Chown responded that they were not members of the Working Group.  Mr. Jacobs explained that the Working Group was structured to review and propose recommendations as directed by Council; however, there is the normal consultation process, which is taking place today.

 

Pierre Dufresne, Manager, Land Development, Tartan Land Corporation, and Don Kennedy, Builder Developer Council, Ottawa Carleton Home Builders Association (OCHBA).  Mr. Dufresne explained that he and Mr. Kennedy represented OCHBA on the Working Group, which supported the staff report, save and except for section 4, which
Mr. Kennedy would address.  The report is a good representation of the work accomplished by the Working Group over the last year.  Mr. Dufresne described the efforts of the Working Group and the process that lead to the recommendations as well as a history relative to achieving affordable housing objectives.  The provision of housing for lower income levels is a social responsibility shared collectively in the City, but that burden does not solely rest on the land development industry.  The group took a very inter-disciplinary approach in reviewing the issues that prevent the provision of housing at a lower cost with a number of meetings and guest lecturers, specifically at the 30th income percentile ($132,000).  There was also a presentation by the loans manager of the Bank of Montreal, who said quite succinctly that he could not finance a project where the pro-forma show a very small margin of profit, no profit or in some instances, possibly a loss.

 

He referred to the Provincial Policy Statement targets.  The first states “to ensure an adequate supply of land available for housing and to maintain a supply of residential units with servicing capacity” – one of the tools is “give, sell or lease surplus municipal lands for the development of affordable housing” – that makes sense since the City has a huge land bank, much of which was not acquired at market value.  Although requested, RPAM did not attend one meeting, which seemed to indicate they were not interested in selling land for less than market value, necessary in the provision of affordable housing.  He did not understand why the City cannot participate using their land bank while asking land developers to use their lands and the construction of their products at less than market value.  The next target is “to encourage housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and lower incomes” – architects and planners were involved in a full afternoon meeting, which illustrated an example of how zoning densities could be an effective tool, but in the end resulted in the Group being informed by two Councillors (the strongest proponents of the OP policy in the existing OP) that although it was great, their community would not accept it.  “To encourage all forms of residential intensification in parts of built-up areas to create potential of new housing units” – he reiterated the problems inherently associated with that – on a bi-weekly basis the Committee considers applications for up-zoning and site plan approvals that are disputed by the community, by staff and by Council at times, because these are deemed not to be appropriate in a certain neighbourhood.  “To establish cost-effective development standards for new residential development and redevelopment to reduce the cost of housing” – this goes to engineering standards and the frustration with increased cost because these standards were not safety related and imposed without any basis to Ministry of Environment (MOE) Guidelines, etc.

 

They spoke to reducing the cost of housing by changing the standards, but TUPW staff indicated the standards were set and not flexible with very limited opportunity to change these standards to lower costs.  The entire issue has to be regarded as a multi-disciplinary effort with reform in all aspects for developers to achieve the affordable housing targets and if the burden is solely placed on the development industry, that is irresponsible and ineffective.

 

Mr. Kennedy advised that his involvement was on behalf of the small builder within the OCHA, much the same as Habitat and others trying to find parcels of land to develop upon.  He provided an example of a 1,200 square foot town home with serviced land costs of $1,400/foot that ranged up to $1,500 and $1,600/foot in suburbia and construction costs of $80/square foot.  Before any profit, it is $159,000.  At 1,000 square feet, with a reduction in development charges, the number would come down to $130,000.  But, in real terms, with stacked townhouses or apartments and reduced development charges that takes away any recreational area for children and no money to develop the required parks for residents within higher density areas.  There was very active participation within the group and he opined that Section 4 truly troubles them.  The refrain today has been “the home builders must”.  They would like to try, but would like to have City lands became available and the change to development standards mentioned earlier by Mr. Dufresne.  Mr. Kennedy raised the issue of the existing tax base to participate and possibly a line item on the tax bill ($100) to have the general business community and general populace contribute.  He concluded by stating the exercise was a very positive experience.  There is more that needs to be accomplished to expand the tool box beyond the development industry.  The Committee should approve the recommendations, but the City should continue to work on the tool box to make it compelling.  The report is a remarkable document with many interesting ideas.

 


Chair Hume resumed the Chair.

 

As a result of the presentation, the following clarification was provided by the delegation and staff:

·        The toolkits, if used, could assist in eradicating the affordable housing issue, but taken individually encounter conflict at some point and are discouraged.

·        The OMB has considered the question of cash-in-lieu under Section 37 and it does not require that the cash-in-lieu extend to the precise neighbourhood where the density transfer has taken place.

·        The idea of air rights and bonusing is only just coming to the forefront.

·        The City has standardized the typical road cross-section from former municipalities and is working on alternative road cross-sections through the Engineering Liaison Subcommittee; and, in fact, the development industry has currently narrowed that down to 3 or 4 preferred.  A report is anticipated in the fall.

·        A value engineering analysis has been undertaken with TUPW, which basically returns to basics in terms of engineering standards, especially with storm water management and pipe services that in the past were higher than MOE minimum requirements.  The City is looking at possibly lower some of those standards.  Lower does not necessarily mean higher risk, but returning to identified standards.

·        In terms of right-of-ways, requirements in certain circumstances need to be adjusted, especially on single-loaded roadways.

·        Staff will be reporting back and it should be cast in the light of the impact not only on engineering standards, but also on the ability to provide affordable housing vis a vis more density at less cost.

 

Stephen Silver, Homespace Developemnts, asked that Council permit as of today the already approved construction of secondary suites across the amalgamated City as opposed to waiting two years for the zoning harmonization process to be completed.  His arguments in support are as follows:

·        Committee and Council has already recognized the benefits of accomplishing this goal through the creation of proper secondary suites in the OP.  Due to the massive harmonization process of the zoning by-laws, the entire City will not gain the benefits of this initiative until 2006.  The delay has created an inequity across the City.

·        As a professional engineer, his company is in the construction and property management industry and provides a patent-pending product service to homeowners with empty spaces in their basements and/or garages etc.  His company designs, constructs and property manages completely self contained, sound and odour isolated, fire separated secondary suites.


·        Due to knowledge of the Tenant Protection Act and third party positioning, he ensures the smooth operation of stable suite income flow to the homeowner as well as affordable housing for tenants.

·        There is a strong interest from both homeowners and tenants; e. g. seniors with fixed incomes, young couples - to create income streams.

·        The former Cities of Nepean, Gloucester and Cumberland already have allowances for secondary suites in their zoning by-laws, but citizens in the 8 remaining cities are not permitted suites and won’t be for 2 years.

He asked that this component of the harmonization process be expedited since it has already been approved in the OP with no objections.

 

In response to Councillor Bédard, staff explained there is nothing to preclude the City from amending each of the individual by-laws if that was the direction of Council.  It is a means of incrementally increasing housing opportunities throughout communities with virtually little or no impact on the neighbourhood character.

 

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

 

Councillor Holmes presented several Motions.  The first relates to recommendation 1:

Replace 2.5.2.2 with:

The City will require the production of affordable housing in new residential development and redevelopment such that annual production provides for:

a)         25% of the total new units will be affordable housing of which at least 15% will be affordable to households up to the 30th income percentile and the remainder of the 25% will be affordable to households up the 40th income percentile.

In support of her Motion, she stated the City should not be weakening the OP, especially when working with the Province on the amendment to the Planning Act.  The Province is interested in giving cities more accountability in meeting the needs of its residents.  It is clear there is an ability to bring housing in at a lower cost and CAHDCO is a prime example.  The City would like to see both senior levels of government joining it to provide social housing, but needs private sector involvement to address the 13,000 unit waiting list.  She asked the Committee to return to its definition during the OP review.

 


Staff responded to questions posed by members of the Committee.  A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:

·        When looking at the legislative abilities, it is more important to proceed on a consensus basis with an OP approved policy as opposed to expending resources at the OMB arguing in support of the Motion.  Nothing in the package before Committee precludes support for initiatives similar to CAHDCO or Habitat and the City would be moving forward on affordable housing as opposed to defending a position.

·        The City does not have the legislative authority to require the production of affordable housing.  This policy is already at the OMB under appeal.

·        Staff would support the approach outlined in the recommendation, which works towards a target, monitors the success of achieving that target and with Federal and Provincial governments to improve the legislative environment to set requirements or have a broader range of tools and incentives available.  If the Committee changes it from a target to a requirement, staff cannot defend Council’s decision on that matter.

·        To set a requirement in place that doesn’t have the support of the industry makes it very difficult to negotiate and work with them.  It is better to set standards and targets and establish requirements developed in consensus with housing providers.  The development industry does build new houses, but they are in business in the same manner as any other business.  They are not responsible for providing housing to everyone in the community, which is a government responsibility.  That needs to be done by drawing upon resources that involve the existing community.  The City needs to work with all the stakeholders to achieve consensus and the best method is through the target approach.

·        Prior to 1996, there was the requirement for 25% which was withdrawn by the government of the day.  The previous Regional OP required affordable housing to be defined up to the 60th income percentile, which meant house prices at that time of over $200,000, which was achieved each year.  Likewise for rent cut offs.  The Policy Statement released last week for consultation by the Province is again directing municipalities to look at targets.  The wording with respect to affordable housing talks about establishing targets.

·        In terms of building materials, these are very specific to the requirements of the Building Code Act and cannot be challenged.  In that regard, that is mandated by the Province and is very strict in terms of safety and related issues.  In terms of City standards, it is clearly a balancing act between risk management and safety and those issues are dealt with constantly as a City.

·        In terms of maintenance requirements vs. MOE standards, the industry has challenged the City not to gold-plate its infrastructure, not that the City has, but in some circumstances the City may, as has happened with the debate over when water mains need to be concrete and when can they be plastic.

 


Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

Replace 2.5.2.2 with:

 

The City will require the production of affordable housing in new residential development and redevelopment such that annual production provides for:

 

a)         25% of the total new units will be affordable housing of which at least 15% will be affordable to households up to the 30th income percentile and the remainder of the 25% will be affordable to households up the 40th income percentile.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (3):        Councillors D. Holmes, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate

NAYS (5):       Councillors H. Kreling, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, G. Bédared, P. Hume

 

On Recommendation 3 i) Councillor Holmes noted the length of time for an agreement to be registered on title is 10 years and 20 years is the time frame contained in the Action Ottawa program.  Mr. Jacobs explained that staff opined that 10 years provided a reasonable guarantee, but did not have a concern if the time frame matched the Housing First Policy.  Responding to Councillor Hunter, staff indicated these monies would be due and payable at the end of the 20 year period.

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That 3 i) be amended to change the period of deferment and affordability from 10 to 20 years.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

On 3 ii), Councillor Holmes asked that the first sentence end after the word “levies” and that a new sentence commence “Explore mechanisms…” and asked that the phrase “that is affordable on re-sale as well as first purchase” be added.  That would ensure affordability on re-sale, with a mechanism in place.  Mr. Jacobs indicated the intent of the policy would be to maintain the value and re-sale value of the house similar to the CAHDCO model, which allows for the housing to be resold at affordable levels and maintain that affordability over the long term.  On the intent of the wording, Mr. Mawby advised it is consistent with conversations by the Working Group over the past 8-10 months.  Other cities have looked at ways to ensure there is no windfall profit when they have made an investment in housing and there are a number of methods of doing that; one, is that the house could be sold for example at a market rate 10 years down the road, but that a portion or defined difference of that re-sale value and the program value would be returned to the City or another partner.

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That Recommendation 3 ii) be amended to read as follows:

 

For new non-profit rental and not-for-profit sponsored ownership projects, continue to waive payment of planning application fees, building permit fees, and development charges; amend the Parkland By-laws of the former municipalities to waive the Parkland levies; and,.  Explore mechanisms for the deferral, reduction or waiver of such fees and charges to other developers providing affordable housing in addition to those rental housing projects in 3 i); if the development is for homeownership, the units must be affordable on re-sale as well.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

On 3 iv, Councillor Holmes noted the reference to engineering standards and hoped to see a report come forward with narrower streets than currently in existence.

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That 3 iv) be amended to add:  after consulting with private and non-profit developers.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

On 3 v), Councillor Holmes asked to strengthen the wording to change it from “Ensure that in the preparation of the new harmonized Zoning By-Law, opportunities be identified to” to “Ensure that the new harmonized Zoning By-Law promotes”.

 

Councillor Hunter questioned whether the amendment would pre-determine the outcome of the zoning by-law prior to the public hearing and opined that went too far.  He did not have a problem with the incentives proposed for public input.  In response, Councillor Holmes did not presume to say there would not be a public process, with public meetings, notification, etc., but the City would be going forward to promote these through that normal rezoning process.  Mr. Jacobs confirmed there would be the normal process and the amendment put forward a position in support of these changes in the by-law, subject to community consultation prior to a final decision.  Mr. Marc opined that Councillor Hunter’s comments are well-founded and that they could be addressed by simply putting the word “draft” between the words “new” and “harmonized” and he opined that is what was intended and would reflect the process the by-law would follow.

 


Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That 3 v) be amended to read as follows:

 

Ensure that in the preparation of the new draft harmonized Zoning By-law, opportunities be identified to promotes:

§                     promote a greater mix of dwelling types  throughout the City;

§                     provide more flexibility in housing form and design;

§                     increased density within existing buildings and neighbourhoods while respecting existing built form;

§                     permit rooming houses, group homes, shelter accommodation, retirement homes throughout the City subject to appropriate regulation;

§                     reduced minimum vehicular parking and loading standards for residential development.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

YEAS (5):        Councillors G. Bédared, D. Holmes, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, P. Hume

NAYS (3):       Councillors G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, H. Kreling

 

On Recommendation 3 vi) b) Chair Hume received assurance the delegated authority would be in consultation with the Ward Councillor in the same manner as other delegated issues.

 

On Recommendation 3 vi) c), Councillor Holmes indicated she would like to add to the end of this recommendation “and the length of time any affordable units will remain affordable and what mechanism will be used to achieve this.”  The City would be looking for information on prices, tenure and housing mix, but not asking for how long they will remain affordable.  The same would pertain to Recommendation 3 vi) e).  Mr. Jacobs opined this information would not be part of an application, but may be part of a proposal with discussion taking place.  The information the Councillor was looking for would all be available at the time that a report came before Committee on both the current affordability as well as the proposed affordability over time.

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That 3 vi) c) be amended to add:  and the length of time any affordable units will remain affordable and what mechanism will be used to achieve this.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

YEAS (5):        Councillors D. Holmes, H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, P. Hume

NAYS (3):       Councillors G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That 3 vi) c) be amended to add:  including the length of time any affordable units will remain affordable and what mechanisms will be used to achieve this.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

YEAS (5):        Councillors D. Holmes, H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, P. Hume

NAYS (3):       Councillors G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That Recommendation 4 i) be amended to read as follows:

 

i)          allow municipalities through the provincial planning policy statement to set requirements for a minimum percentage of new housing to be affordable to the 40th income percentile with 15% affordable to the 30th income percentile using a variety of tools such as land dedication, cash-in-lieu, and off-site development;

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That Recommendation 4 iv) be amended to read as follows:

 

iv)        provide a provincial sales tax offset grant on construction materials used in affordable, purpose built rental housing and permanently affordable ownership housing ;

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That Recommendation 4 v) be amended to read as follows:

 

v) re-examine income and property tax treatment of rental housing with full consultation with affordable housing organizations such as ONPHA, CHFC, Canadian Housing Renewal Assocization (CHRA) and other industry associations; and,

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 


Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That a new Recommendation 4 vi) be added as follows:

 

vi)        provide a GST offset grant or exemption on construction materials in affordable, purpose-built rental housing and permanently affordable ownership housing.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

On Recommendation 5, Councillor Holmes asked that the words “recommendations to include an oversight board including community representatives” be added.  Mr. Mawby concurred with the amendment and stated that a Housing Trust should be a community-based entity.  Mr. Marc added that he read the Motion to authorize the expenditure of levies and the Motion would put into the hands of non-Councillors the expenditure of funds raised and he submitted that Committee members should be aware of that.

 

Subsequent to concerns raised by Committee members on the Motion, Councillor Holmes asked Mr. Mawby if there was a problem with the Motion.  Mr. Mawby clarified that the investigation would evaluate an oversight board with community representatives.

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That a Recommendation 5 be amended to read:

 

Direct the Community and Protective Services Department to investigate ways of establishing and implementing a Housing Trust Fund to receive and disperse any development levies, cash in lieu payments and/or land contributions made under Recommendation 3(iii) towards affordable housing, including the evaluation of an oversight board that includes community representatives, and report back to both the Planning and Environment Committee and the Health and Social Services Committee.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

On recommendation 6, Councillor Holmes noted that staff is interested in a Housing First Policy that is broader than that in existence.  The City wants to be more proactive and was in support of assisting the housing.  She anticipated a report coming forward and expected to see a transparent policy, which will include land banking as well as many other items.  Mr. Mawby added that there was a direction from Health Recreation and Social Services Committee (HRSSC) to undertake a similar report that would be a joint report.

 


Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

 

That recommendation 6 be amended to read as follows:

 

Direct the Corporate Services Department and People Services Department to undertake an evaluation of the Housing First policy to ensure the City has an effective, transparent and appropriate policy for the disposal of surplus municipal land and including the evaluation of all options such as the ability to land bank for affordable housing.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:

 

That the zoning amendment process be initiated to allow secondary suites in all residential zones.

 

CARRIED with Councillor G. Hunter dissenting.

 

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.         Approve amendments to the new City of Ottawa Official Plan as contained in Document 1.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED as amended

 

YEAS (5):  Councillors H. Kreling, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, G. Bédared, P. Hume

NAYS (3): Councillors A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes

 

2.         Direct staff to monitor the affordable housing market and the production of new affordable residential development through the Annual Development Review to assess the achievement of the Official Plan objectives.

 


3.         Direct staff to implement the following planning incentives and direct supports to encourage and promote the achievement of the Official Plan affordable housing policies:

 

i)          For new purpose-built rental housing projects, defer payment of building permit fees, parkland levies and development charges for a period of 20 years without interest, on a case by case basis, if 25% or more of the units are provided at rents which fall below the 30th income percentile. An agreement between the proponent and the City is to be registered on title for a period of 20 years to restrict rent increases to the annual provincial rent guidelines for the designated affordable units.  The Agreement shall state that leases for the affordable units be available for viewing by city staff to monitor compliance.  In the event of non-compliance with the terms of the Agreement, fees and levies shall be due and payable immediately with interest charged.

 

ii)         For new non-profit rental and not-for-profit sponsored ownership projects, continue to waive payment of planning application fees, building permit fees, and development charges; amend the Parkland By-laws of the former municipalities to waive the Parkland levies.  Explore mechanisms for the deferral, reduction or waiver of such fees and charges to other developers providing affordable housing in addition to those rental housing projects in 3 i); if the development is for homeownership, the units must be affordable on re-sale as well.

 

iii)        The preparation of an implementation plan for approval by City Council to provide for increased density or height or both in new development projects in exchange for community benefits, including affordable housing, as contained in the new Official Plan and enabled by Section 37 of the Planning Act.

 

iv)        Propose alternative engineering standards to reduce residential development costs after consulting with private and non-profit developers.

 

v)         Ensure the new draft harmonized Zoning By-law promotes:

§                     a greater mix of dwelling types  throughout the City;

§                     more flexibility in housing form and design;


§                     increased density within existing buildings and neighbourhoods while respecting existing built form;

§                     rooming houses, group homes, shelter accommodation, retirement homes throughout the City subject to appropriate regulation;

§                     reduced minimum vehicular parking and loading standards for residential development.

 

CARRIED as amended with Councillor G. Hunter dissenting.

 

vi)        Amend the City’s Development Review Process to:

 

a)          Extend the Cash-in-lieu of Parking By-law on an interim basis, pending its comprehensive review, to areas outside the former City of Ottawa, for affordable housing proposals.

 

b)          Delegate to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals the authority to approve cash-in-lieu of parking applications at a nominal fee of $1.00 per parking space for the  provision of affordable housing units.

 

CARRIED with Councillor G. Hunter dissenting.

 

c)           Amend application forms for Plan of Subdivision and Condominium, and Site Plan Control Approval, to require information on the proposed housing mix, tenure and anticipated prices (rental or sale) of any proposed developments containing dwelling units and the length of time any affordable units will remain affordable and what mechanism will be used to achieve this.

 

CARRIED as amended with Councillor G. Hunter dissenting.

 

d)         Amend By-law No. 2001-451 respecting other information or materials to be provided for certain planning applications, to reflect the additional information requested as noted in c) above.

 


e)         Require all Planning and Environment Committee or delegated authority reports on Plan of Subdivision and Condominium, and Site Plan Control Approval, for applications proposing dwelling units to include an evaluation of how the affordable housing targets in the Official Plan are being met through the proposed development including the length of time any affordable units will remain affordable and what mechanisms will be used to achieve this.

 

CARRIED as amended with Councillor G. Hunter dissenting.

 

 

4.         Direct staff to petition the Federal and Provincial Government to:

 

i)          allow municipalities through the provincial planning policy statement to set requirements for a minimum percentage of new housing to be affordable to the 40th income percentile with 15% affordable to the 30th income percentile using a variety of tools such as land dedication, cash-in-lieu, and off-site development;

ii)         allow the use of development levies specifically for affordable housing;

iii)        allow municipalities to require land dedication for affordable housing, with a provision that land price reflect the value of the land with the affordable housing;

iv)        provide a provincial sales tax offset grant on construction materials used in affordable, purpose built rental housing and permanently affordable ownership housing ;

v)                  re-examine income and property tax treatment of rental housing with full consultation with affordable housing organizations such as ONPHA, CHFC, CHRA and other industry associations; and,

vi)                provide a GST offset grant or exemption on construction materials in affordable, purpose-built rental housing and permanently affordable ownership housing.

 

5.         Direct the Community and Protective Services Department to investigate ways of establishing and implementing a Housing Trust Fund to receive and disperse any development levies, cash in lieu payments and/or land contributions made under Recommendation 3(iii) towards affordable housing, including the evaluation of an oversight board that includes community representatives, and report back to both the Planning and Environment Committee and the Health and Social Services Committee.

 


6.         Direct the Corporate Services Department and People Services Department to undertake an evaluation of the Housing First policy to ensure the City has an effective, transparent and appropriate policy for the disposal of surplus municipal land and including the evaluation of all options such as the ability to land bank for affordable housing.

 

7.         That the zoning amendment process be initiated to allow secondary suites in all residential zones.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED as amended