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.
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
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 |
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