April 15, 1999

To:Special Joint Meeting of the Urban Environment and Development

Committee and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee

From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject:The Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force Final Report: Recommendations and Policy Directions related to the Housing Policies of the Official Plan.

Purpose:

To provide an overview of the recommendations and policy directions proposed in the final report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force relating to the housing policies of the Official Plan and to present an implementation framework.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate financial implications stemming from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

1. in consultation with the City Solicitor, be requested to meet with senior staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to seek legislative authority to provide the City of Toronto with enhanced demolition control powers consistent with the provisions of the former Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA);
2. be authorized, commencing immediately, to pursue contributions toward the provision of affordable housing pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act for increases in permitted height and/or density, with respect to the following situations:

(a)site-specific amendments to both the Official Plan and Zoning By-Laws that are being approved for a specific development; and

(b)site-specific amendments to the Zoning By-Law that are being approved and in which the appropriate Official Plan provisions for the implementation of Section 37 are already in place;

1. be authorized to request that the Committee of Adjustment, when dealing with minor variance applications involving substantial increases in height and/or density, impose a condition under Section 45(9) of the Planning Act for a contribution toward affordable housing where the need for affordable housing is reasonably related to the variance applied for;

4.any cash contribution in lieu of affordable housing, secured through the implementation of Recommendations 2 and 3, be deposited to the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing;

5.prepare draft amendments to the City's Planning documents, for consideration by the Planning and Transportation Committee, Community Councils and Council, to permit second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses, subject to appropriate building, fire and planning standards being met and consistent with the approach taken in the 1994 provincial legislation;

6. consider as a high priority, in the preparation of a housing implementation plan as part of the Official Plan process, policies on urban intensification and the inclusion of affordable housing in new residential developments ;

7. consult with the heads of the appropriate Departments to prepare, implement and report on a plan to streamline development approvals which builds on current efforts and takes into consideration best practices;

8. thoroughly review the current planning provisions and procedures respecting rooming houses and examine the opportunities for the provision of such housing City-wide in the context of a longer-term work plan in co-ordination with Buildings, Fire, Housing, Health and Legal staff;

and that

9. the appropriate City Officials be authorized to undertake any necessary actions to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/ History:

At its meeting of March 2, 3 & 4, 1999, City Council adopted the recommendations of a report from the Chief Administrative Officer on the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force Final Report.

The CAO's report provided a discussion of the policy implications and a preliminary analysis of the financial implications for the City arising from the Task Force recommendations.

Included in the CAO's report was a recommendation that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) on the Task Force recommendations relating to the housing policies of the Official Plan, including: second suites, securing Section 37 contributions for affordable housing, urban intensification, inclusionary zoning, streamlining development approval and rooming house issues. This report is in response to that recommendation.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

1. Overview of the Task Force Report and Proposed Directions

In January 1998, Mayor Lastman appointed a Task Force, headed by Dr. Anne Golden, to recommend solutions to the growth of homelessness and to respond to public concerns about its increasing visibility. This was followed in October, 1998, by the declaration of homelessness as a national disaster by City Council which prompted similar declarations by municipal councils across the country. In January of this year, the Task Force submitted its final report which contained two central themes:

(1)prevention and long-term responses must replace the reactive, emergency responses to homelessness that have been relied on; and

(2)everyone, including all levels of government, must take ownership of the problem and responsibility for solving it.

The Task Force identified six major barriers that have prevented effective solutions:

• jurisdictional gridlock and political impasse;
• dramatically increased poverty;
• decreasing supply of low-cost rental housing;
• a service system biased towards emergency and survival measures;
• inadequate community programs and supports for people with serious mental health and addiction problems; and
• limited capacity for service co-ordination.

To address these barriers, the Task Force made 105 recommendations comprising an action plan with multiple strategies. Thirty-four recommendations were identified as "pivotal" in that the other recommendations were seen as dependent on these being implemented. This action plan was conceived as a package and the Task Force recommended against a piecemeal implementation approach. The Task Force concluded that homelessness in Toronto can be prevented and reduced - the problems are solvable and solutions are available.

2. Reporting on the Task Force Recommendations

Owing to the diverse nature of the Task Force's 105 recommendations, staff will be reporting on these through several standing committees. The intent, however, is that each report will discuss the issues within the context of the action plan as a whole:

• as noted above, this report focuses on the Task Force's recommendations relating to the housing policies of the Official Plan;

• the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department will report on the recommendations related to: service co-ordination and planning; emergency shelter, social assistance; health and mental health; supportive and affordable housing issues; and services for aboriginal peoples and immigrants and refugees;

• the Corporate Services Committee will review the recommendations on land management and a "housing first" policy for surplus municipal lands;

• the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee will review the issue of development charges;
• the Budget Committee will consider the financial implications; and

• A final report synthesizing the proposed directions recommended by each Standing Committee will be prepared for presentation to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

3. Who is Homeless or at Risk of Homelessness in Toronto?

Homelessness is an issue which affects communities across Toronto, the GTA, the province and the country. Almost half of the people using Toronto's hostels come from outside the City. Although the downtown area sees more of the "visibly homeless" across the GTA (people sleeping rough on the streets or in parks), there are growing numbers of what is referred to as the "hidden homeless". These are individuals and families who are doubled-up, living with relatives or friends, living in hostels, or who live in smaller, inappropriate, temporary, even illegal, accommodation. The hidden homeless are people who are at significant risk of becoming homeless.

Over the past few years the face of homelessness in Toronto has changed. The Task Force has identified that the fastest growing groups of homeless are families with children and youth under 18 years of age. Data from 1996 show that almost half of all hostel users were families, including 5,300 children. There has also been a significant growth in the number of families who are at risk of homelessness. The waiting list for subsidized accommodation has reached almost 44,000 households (net of transfers). Large families must wait the longest for subsidized housing because of the very low turnover in units with three or more bedrooms.

The Task Force report underscores the complexity of the causes of homelessness, including individual issues such as: physical abuse, family breakdown, physical and mental health issues, and substance abuse, as well as larger societal factors: increasing poverty, labour market changes, changes in the housing market and changes in the social safety net.

4. The Demand for Affordable Housing in Toronto

As part of its report, The Task Force documented the lack of affordable housing in Toronto and concluded that new low-cost supply is vital to prevent further demand pressures at the low end of the rental market. Thirty of the report's 105 recommendations concern affordable housing, of which ten relate to the housing policies of the Official Plan including three that are identified as "pivotal" (see Appendix A).

In looking at the demand for affordable housing, the Task Force provided a detailed assessment of recent changes in tenant household incomes as well as changes affecting the rental housing market. Some of the key findings are:

(1)The number of low-income households in Toronto is growing:

• the number of households with incomes under $20,000/year rose by 64,000 from 1991 to 1996;
• average family incomes fell by 12.5% in the City between during the same period;
• in 1991, 33% of tenant households in the City paid more than 30% of income in rent;
• in 1996, 45% of tenant households paid more than 30% of income in rent, an increase of 12 percentage points over 1991.

(2)Within the GTA, rental affordability problems are concentrated in the City of Toronto:

• the City of Toronto has a greater proportion of lone-parent families and non-family households, particularly at the low-end of the income scale, than the rest of the GTA;
• families with middle incomes are migrating out of the City to the surrounding regions where single-detached, ownership housing is more affordable.

(3)Rising rents have reduced the inventory of low-cost units:

• each year between 1991 and 1996, an average of 11,000 low-cost, private rental units shifted to the middle range of rents because rents were rising faster than inflation;
• there was a net loss of low-cost rental housing over the five year period between 1991 and 1996, even after taking into consideration additions to the social housing stock and new second suites.

(4)The private sector has not met low-income housing needs:

• there has been little new rental construction in the City of Toronto;
• the economic rents of new rental buildings are higher than prevailing market rents.

Another factor affecting the future demand for affordable housing is the potential impact on the rental stock through demolitions. The Tenant Protection Act (TPA) does not provide the City with legislative powers to restrict the demolition of rental housing or to require its replacement. Without the ability to control or restrict demolition, it will be difficult for the City to meet the recommended goal of adding 2,000 units/year to the rental stock.

5. The Implementation of an Affordable Housing Action Plan

The Task Force calls upon the City to take a leadership role in ensuring the supply of affordable rental housing both through new construction and the preservation of the existing stock. The City is encouraged to use the existing planning tools at its disposal, to seek additional powers, and to engage all levels of government in the search for solutions.

This report focuses on those components of the affordable housing strategy that relate to the housing policies of the Official Plan. Other components of the affordable housing action plan address the role of the provincial and federal governments who have considerably more resources to apply to housing development, including financial assistance, tax relief, capital support, reallocation of subsidy savings, and the provision of land. The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services will provide a more detailed assessment of these aspects of the action plan in her report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee.

6. Actions Taken to Date in Response to the Task Force Recommendations on the Housing Policies of the Official Plan

Recommendation 91 of the Task Force report identifies the need for the new Official Plan to incorporate the goal of preventing homelessness and to support the use of planning tools to preserve the stock of existing housing and to encourage the development of new affordable supply. At its meeting of March 2, 3 & 4, 1999, City Council approved a report titled: "Framework for the New Official Plan", which outlined the work program, process, timing and communication strategy for the development of a new plan for the amalgamated City. The report indicated that the prime objective of the new Official Plan will be to enhance the quality of life in the City of Toronto through reinvestment in community, economy and the natural and built environments. In discussing planning for community, the report makes specific reference to the level and quality of affordable housing and stresses the importance of housing as a basic building block of the new plan.

The Framework Report also identified the importance of implementation plans for operationalizing the policies of the new Official Plan. It is intended that there will be a specific implementation plan for housing which will outline strategies and approaches to reduce the level of homelessness, preserve the existing housing stock, and encourage the creation of new affordable housing. These strategies will assist the City in meeting its goal of no net loss of affordable rental housing.

Important steps have already been taken to preserve the existing stock of affordable rental housing as proposed in Task Force Recommendations 96 and 97. At its meeting of March 2, 3 & 4, 1999, City Council approved recommendations on new Official Plan policies and related by-laws to restrict the condominium conversion and demolition of rental housing, including requesting additional powers from the Province.

Securing additional powers to control or restrict the demolition of rental housing must be identified as a priority. Housing market conditions in the City promote the redevelopment of rental properties. Over time, redevelopment will reduce the already scarce supply of affordable rental accommodation:

• planning staff are currently aware of approximately 1,500 rental units that will be demolished through condominium redevelopment proposals where additional height and/or density is being sought;

• three new applications have been received/discussed with staff since early March;

• sites are generally low-rise rentals providing unit types appropriate for families; and

• the estimated impact does not include proposed demolitions where an increase in height and/or density is not being sought.

It is recommended that in order to implement the steps taken by City Council at its meeting of March 2, 3, & 4, 1999, that enhanced demolition control powers, consistent with the former RHPA provisions, be sought as soon as possible.

The former Rental Housing Protection Act set out three criteria as the basis for approving the demolition of rental housing:

• Council could approve the demolition of a rental property if it considers the property to be structurally unsound;

• Council could require applicants: (1) to replace the units (same number, types, and level of affordability) so that the overall supply of the rental housing would not be reduced and (2) to mitigate the impacts on the existing tenants; and

• Council could take into consideration local market conditions and the adequacy of the supply of affordable rental housing when considering the approval of the demolition of rental housing.

The most effective mechanism to implement this authority would be special legislation such as an amendment to the City of Toronto Act. To this end, it is recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor be requested to meet with senior staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to seek legislative authority to provide the City of Toronto with enhanced demolition control powers consistent with the provisions of the former Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA).

These actions, in response to three of the Task Force's recommendations (including a "pivotal" recommendation on condominium conversion), represent an important starting point for the City in strengthening its planning strategies to ensure a mix of housing to meet the full range of needs.

7. Toward the Development of An Implementation Framework

As outlined above, concrete steps have already been taken on 3 of the 10 Task Force recommendations related to the housing policies of the Official Plan. The following discussion on the seven remaining recommendations is organized into three subsections:

(I)"pivotal" actions recommended by the Task Force which need to be addressed in the shorter term;

(II)issues which will be dealt with through the Official Plan process; and

(III)items which will require a longer-term work plan, including interdepartmental consultation.

8. Pivotal Recommendations on Affordable Housing

Of the seven remaining recommendations on affordable housing, Recommendations 92 and 100 were identified by the Task Force as "pivotal" (see Appendix A). Recommendation 92 deals with seeking contributions for low-income housing in exchange for increases in height and/or density. Recommendation 100, together with Recommendation 102, concerns permitting new second suites in certain house forms and locations and legalizing existing second suites.

I.a.1 Contributions Toward the Provision of Low-Income Housing - Legislative Framework

The Planning Act, through Section 37, provides municipalities with the authority to seek the provision of public benefits (i.e. facilities, services and matters) in exchange for increases in height and/or density in a rezoning process pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act. These benefits may be secured by a municipality by entering into one or more agreements with a developer. The agreement(s) may be registered against the title of the land to which it applies and the municipality is entitled to enforce those provisions contained in the agreement(s).

In order to give effect to the by-laws, a municipality must have an Official Plan in place which contains provisions relating to the use of Section 37. The former municipalities of Toronto, North York, East York and Etobicoke had specific policies relating to the use of Section 37 in their Official Plans. The former municipalities of York and Scarborough applied Section 37 on a site-specific basis where Official Plan Amendments were involved and did not have a specific Official Plan policy.

I.a.2 Policies in the Former City of Toronto

Through the Section 37 provisions in its Official Plan, the former City of Toronto was able to secure a wide range of public benefits, including: a large number of social housing units, workplace day cares, heritage preservation projects, public art projects, community service space together with improvements to the public realm (e.g. streetscapes, infrastructure). A significant amount of capital funds were also secured toward the construction of new community facilities such as schools, recreation centres and libraries. With respect to affordable housing, in the early 1980s, the private sector contributed land for approximately 6,000 social housing units and over $19M cash-in-lieu of the land.

I.a.3 Pursuing Benefits for Affordable Housing - An Interim Approach

Section 37 of the Planning Act provides municipalities with an important tool to secure contributions for affordable housing in exchange for increases in height and/or density. This is a mechanism which the new City of Toronto should use to the benefit of its citizens and communities.

Until the new Official Plan is in place to provide a formal framework, the following interim steps are recommended: that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be authorized, in the immediate future, to pursue contributions toward the provision of affordable housing pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act for increases in permitted height and/or density, with respect to any of the following situations:

(a)site-specific amendments to both the Official Plan and Zoning By-Laws that are being approved for a specific development; and

(b)site-specific amendments to the Zoning By-Law that are being approved and in which the appropriate Official Plan provisions for the implementation of Section 37 are already in place.

Planning staff note that the Committee of Adjustment is dealing with an increasing number of applications involving significant increases in density and height. In the past, where substantial increases have been sought, and considered appropriate as minor variances in the site-specific circumstances, the owners provided public benefits similar to what would have been pursued in a Section 37 agreement. In similar future cases, conditions should be requested whereby public benefits are secured through an agreement which also can be registered on title. These agreements could be imposed at the discretion of the Committee of Adjustment (or the Ontario Municipal Board) as a condition of approval pursuant to Section 45(9) of the Planning Act.

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Community Services should be authorized to request that the Committee of Adjustment, when dealing with minor variance applications involving substantial increases in height and/or density, impose a condition under Section 45(9) of the Planning Act for a contribution toward affordable housing where the need for affordable housing is reasonably related to the variance applied for.

Any cash contribution in lieu of affordable housing is to be deposited to the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing. The Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing was established by City Council at its meeting of February 2, 3 & 4, 1999. The purpose of this fund is to provide direct City financial assistance to non-profit organizations developing affordable housing demonstration projects with the purpose of assisting groups to lever other sources of financial assistance whether through charitable donations, financing, government subsidies and/or other contributions. The importance of cash-in-lieu contributions is that they will help to replenish the fund and allow additional affordable rental housing projects to be undertaken.

I.b.1 Second Suites as a Cost-Effective form of Affordable Housing:

The decreasing supply of low-cost rental housing was identified by the Task Force as one of the six major barriers preventing effective solutions. There is a growing affordability problem for renters in Toronto as a result of: (i) a real decline in tenant incomes; (ii) rent inflation which has reduced the number of low-cost units, and (iii) a set of economic and market circumstances which have discouraged investment in new affordable rental housing. Through Recommendations 100 and 102, the Task Force has proposed that second suites be given serious consideration as a cost-effective form of affordable housing. Specifically, it was recommended that current restrictions on the creation of new units should be addressed and that a process should be developed for the legalization of existing units.

I.b.2 Second Suites and the Toronto Rental Housing Market:

The Task Force has estimated that there are approximately 100,000 second suites in the City of Toronto representing about a fifth of the rental market. Second suites are popularly referred to by a variety of names: nanny flats, basement or accessory units, apartments-in-houses, granny flats, and in-law suites. They are a cost-effective, market-driven affordable housing option which does not require subsidization.

To get a better sense of the number and distribution of second suites across the City of Toronto, a background paper was commissioned by the Task Force which examined MLS data on home sales and newspaper real estate advertisements. Information from early 1998 showed that approximately 18% of Toronto resale homes included a second suite with Scarborough, North York, York and the former City of Toronto having higher proportions of second suites while Etobicoke and East York had lower proportions.

Second suites are recognized as providing a number of benefits:

• elderly homeowners can access an additional source of income which may allow them to remain in their homes and keep their ties to their community;
• young families can generate extra income to assist with mortgage expenses which may mean the difference between becoming homeowners or remaining tenants;

• families and individuals have the option of remaining in their communities when their housing circumstances change; and

• extended families are able to live together while retaining privacy and independence.

I.b.3 Second Suites - Legislative Context:

In 1994, the Provincial Government through Bill 120 made changes to a number pieces of legislation, including: the Planning Act, the Municipal Act, the Building Code, the Fire Code, the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rent Control Act and the Rental Housing Protection Act, to allow a self-contained second unit as-of-right in single-detached, semi-detached and row housing. The second unit had to meet Building Code, Fire Code and reasonable planning standards. Municipal planning documents which prohibited second units in these types of houses were superceded by this legislation.

Although many issues were raised in the debate on second suites at the municipal level, most of the discussion focussed on health, safety and parking. The Fire and Building Codes set requirements for second suites which had to be met in order for the second suite to be legal. New powers of entry and enforcement were enacted to ensure compliance with provincial and municipal standards. The new legislation dictated that planning documents could not require that a house with two units have more than two on-site parking spaces and must allow the driveway to be used to meet the on-site parking requirement, including that part of the driveway which is located between the front of the facade of a house and the property line. In effect, second suites were permitted as-of-right in all single-detached, semi-detached and row houses in municipalities provided certain standards were met.

In 1996, the provincial government repealed the legislation which allowed second suites as-of-right. This meant that unless municipalities passed by-laws to allow second suites, consistent with the approach taken in the 1994 legislation, the previous by-laws which precluded second suites came back into effect. The intent of the provincial government's action was not to preclude municipalities from permitting second suites. Indeed one of the objectives of provincial devolution was to allow for a higher level of decision-making at the local level. In 1997, for example, the Borough of East York passed By-law 147-97 which permitted second suites ("accessory apartments") in single- and semi-detached dwellings.

I.b.4 Current Zoning Provisions across the Amalgamated City:

The City's current zoning provisions regarding second suites can be summarized as follows:

East York:a second unit is permitted in detached and semi-detached dwellings;

Etobicoke:under certain conditions, second suites are permitted in some areas of Long Branch, Mimico and New Toronto;

Toronto:second suites are permitted, subject to conditions, in single detached, semi-detached, and row housing and accessory suites are permitted in duplexes and triplexes in most areas of the City except for Rosedale, Swansea, Forest Hill and parts of North Toronto;

York:one apartment-in-house is permitted in single- and semi-detached dwellings;

North York:second suites have a restricted permission and are limited to apartment and commercial zones (RM3+); and

Scarborough:second suites are not permitted.

Except for the former City of Toronto, the parking requirement for a second unit is one space for each unit. In the former City of Toronto, the standard is one parking space for the first dwelling unit where parking existed before the addition of the second unit, plus one parking space for each dwelling unit in excess of the first two dwelling units.

I.b.5 The Intent of the Task Force's Recommendations on Second Suites:

In framing its recommendations, the Task Force proposed that there be as-of-right permission for second suites in new developments and in areas with multi-unit residential areas (including semi-detached, duplexes and triplexes) and that steps should be taken to legalize existing suites. The exclusion of single-detached houses from consideration seems to be inconsistent with the report's strong advocacy that they be recognized as a valid part of the housing supply having filled the short-fall in the affordable rental supply for more than 20 years.

I.b.6 The Potential Supply of New Second Suites - A Preliminary Review:

As Recommendation 100 does not speak to those circumstances where second suites are currently permitted, it is assumed that the intent was to extend the permission and not to replace the current provisions that permit second suites. Recommendation 100 has three parts:

• permit second suites as-of-right wherever large scale new residential developments are approved;

• permit second suites as-of-right in areas where semi-detached, duplexes and triplexes already exist; and

• permit second suites in any residential zones that directly abut arterial roads that are well served by public transit.

Large-Scale New Development: Opportunities for large scale developments comprised of single- and semi-detached houses, duplexes and triplexes in the new City are limited. Preliminary projections suggest that less than 5,000 units of the new housing stock, to be produced in the next 10 years, will be single- and semi-detached houses in large-scale developments. Based on the Task Force estimate that about 18% of resale homes in Toronto include a second suite, this would mean that potentially less than 1,000 second suites would be generated through new large-scale development.

As-of-right Where Semi-Detached, Duplexes and Triplexes Already Exist: Most second suites are in single- and semi-detached houses and most new conversions are expected to occur in these house forms as they have the most potential for accommodating second suites while maintaining a relatively low density residential neighbourhood. According to 1996 assessment information the incidence of adding a unit to duplexes and triplexes outside of the former City of Toronto is extremely low. Only 48 additional units in duplexes and 94 additional units in triplexes were reported by assessment officials. This suggests that the impact of extending permission for second suites in duplexes and triplexes outside of the former City of Toronto would not generate a significant amount of new supply. There is also an equity issue in that, because zoning is cumulative, single-detached houses in zones with semi-detached, duplexes and triplexes can be permitted to have second suites, while single-detached homes in other zones are not permitted to have second suites.

Residential Zones That Directly Abut Arterial Roads: as parking was a key consideration in previous discussions on second suites, the Task Force has proposed that community concerns might be mitigated by locating second suites in areas well-served by public transit (i.e. on arterial roads). In fact, it is unlikely that second units would be feasible in suburban locations of the City, given the auto-oriented nature of its development, without proposing parking solutions. One approach to meeting the need for adequate parking would be to permit tandem parking.

Based on this preliminary review, it would appear that the approach which has been proposed by the Task Force would result in a very limited supply of new second suites. This is not the intended effect sought by the Task Force. Currently, most second suites are supplied through single- and semi-detached housing forms most of which, outside the former City of Toronto, are located in zones that only permit single-detached dwellings.

I.b.7 Implementation of Recommendation 100 on As-of-Right Permission for Second Suites:

Implementation of Recommendation 100, as stated by the Task Force, would have the effect of establishing two policies for second suites: one for the inner areas of Toronto (Toronto, York and East York) and one for the outer areas (Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke). This would have the effect of (1) encouraging further intensification in the inner part of the City that is already densely developed and populated and (2) would provide limited opportunities for owners and tenants in the outer areas where the housing stock and nature of development is well-suited to accommodating second units. In addition, the approach recommended by the Task Force, as noted above, would generate only a very modest number of new units.

Therefore, it is recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to prepare draft amendments to the City's Planning documents, for consideration by the Planning and Transportation Committee, Community Councils and Council, to permit second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses, subject to appropriate building, fire and planning standards being met and consistent with the approach taken in the 1994 provincial legislation.

The key considerations are as follows:

• most of the City's second suites, legal, legal non-conforming and "illegal", are in single- and semi-detached housing;

• single- and semi-detached housing is best-suited to accommodate second suites and, regardless of legislation, most second suites will be created in these housing forms;

• between 1994 and 1996, in accordance with Provincial legislation, all single- and semi-detached housing, as well as row housing, were permitted to have a second unit;

• disparities in approaches across the City need to be addressed (e.g. permitted in East York but not North York);

• presently the City does not vigorously enforce its zoning regulations by actively searching for and eliminating "illegal" units. The former municipalities of Scarborough and North York which did not permit second suites have a significant proportion of the stock;

• there are means (e.g. registration, powers of entry and enforcement) available to the City to monitor and enforce compliance with standards; and

• there should be security and predictability for tenants and landlords with respect to second suites.

It would not be practical or appropriate to establish new zoning that prescribes one set of standards for all second suites throughout the City. Existing permissions in East York, Etobicoke (Mimico, Long Branch and New Toronto), former Toronto and York should continue. It would be appropriate to delete age requirements related to second suite permissions (e.g. buildings at least five years old in former Toronto and twenty years old in Mimico). Zoning amendments would be required for those areas where second suites in single- and semi-detached houses are precluded such as in Scarborough, North York, central and northern Etobicoke and parts of former Toronto. Amendments to Official Plans will also be necessary for those that set density limits which could be exceeded if second suites were permitted and, in some cases, definitions may have to be amended.

I.b.8 Implementation of Recommendation 102 to Legalize Existing Second Suites:

The Task Force report estimates that there are presently 100,000 second suites in the City of Toronto and that this important source of affordable housing should be legalized. The Task Force noted that:

• second suites are already an integral part of the affordable housing supply;

• the supply of "illegal" second suites, in the past, has not been significantly deterred by the City by-laws that prohibited second suites in particular areas;

• the introduction of second suites has represented an adaptation of the housing stock to the needs of the population as it has changed over time; and

• an effective low-income housing policy should recognize this form of housing, rather than driving it underground, thereby giving it a measure of security and permanency.

The Task Force recommends that existing second suites that comply with health and safety standards should be legalized and that there be an appropriate public hearing and appeal process. In addition, the onus for making a second suite legal should be on the owner.

Currently, in cases where the zoning permits second units and the unit does not comply with all of the zoning requirements, including parking, the unit could be legalized by the applicant submitting an application for a minor variance to the Committee of Adjustment. This approval process provides an opportunity for anyone to object as well as an appeal for the applicant or objector.

Where the zoning does not permit a second unit, and the unit was created on or after November 16, 1995 (the date Bill 120 was repealed), the owner would have to submit a rezoning application to legalize the unit. As with the minor variance approval process, the rezoning process provides for an opportunity to object and an appeal procedure. If the unit is in an area where the existing zoning does not permit a second suite but the subject unit existed prior to November 16, 1995, it may be a legal non-conforming use provided it meets the planning standards prescribed at that time. An approval process that provides for a public meeting/hearing and appeal mechanism is not required for this last category of second suites as they are not illegal.

As the vast majority of second suites are currently in single- and semi-detached homes, the Committee of Adjustment process is recommended as the most appropriate approach for legalizing those units that would not comply with the zoning provisions. In either case, the public would have an opportunity to express their views as both options would require amendments to existing zoning by-laws which includes public meetings. It should be noted, however, that once the new Zoning By-Laws are in place, assuming Council adoption, compliance would focus on the health, safety and parking requirements.

II.Task Force Recommendations to be Addressed Through the Official Plan Process

Task Force Recommendation 89 (housing opportunities through urban intensification) and Recommendation 92 (requirement for inclusion of affordable housing in new developments) will be addressed primarily through the Official Plan and associated housing implementation plan. The following discussion provides additional background on possible policy options.

II.a Main Streets Intensification and Other Opportunities to Promote Affordable Rental Housing:

Recommendation 98 of the Task Force report proposes that the City should implement the Main Streets Intensification program and explore other strategies for promoting the supply of affordable rental housing. As context for Recommendation 98, the Task Force discussed past efforts to use land use tools to promote affordable housing, such as (i) the conversion of commercial and industrial buildings to condominiums and lofts and (ii) the creation of new apartment housing above existing commercial properties along arterial roads, and proposes that their implementation be given further consideration.

The potential for creating additional housing - particularly affordable housing - through infill and intensification has been the subject of study for a number of years. Urban intensification is also a central theme in the Official Plans of both the former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto. Advocates of infill housing and intensification have stressed the financial advantages, including reduced requirements for investment in new transportation and physical infrastructure. An intensification approach is also consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement which seeks to promote efficient and cost-effective development and land use patterns across Ontario.

In discussing a new approach to planning in Toronto, the Framework Report, adopted by Council on March 2, 3 & 4, proposed that the new Official Plan establish different "lenses" for determining how different parts of the amalgamated City share common features and a common potential for reinvestment. One of the objectives of the Plan will be to identify criteria by which the degree of change can be managed or encouraged. The adaptive re-use of existing buildings, infill development and development of Main Streets and arterial corridors well-served by public transit could provide important opportunities to channel new investment while meeting new housing needs.

In addition to the context provided in the Official Plan, strategies to increase the supply of affordable housing through intensification and the re-adaptive use of non-residential buildings will be addressed through the proposed housing implementation plan. For both of these exercises, key issues will be to determine what an intensification program means and to define appropriate reinvestment locations where residential uses can be increased. For instance, between 1991 and 1996, the City grew by 110,000 people and almost 44,000 households - essentially accommodating another East York within the city limits.

II.b.1 Inclusion of Affordable Housing in New Residential Developments

Recommendation 93 of the Task Force report proposes that the City should request that the City of Toronto Act be amended to permit the City to require the inclusion of affordable housing in new residential developments. This type of approach is popularly referred to as inclusionary zoning.

Inclusionary zoning for affordable housing is a land development control measure, enacted by way of municipal by-law, which generally requires a certain portion of units within any new residential development to be set aside for low and/or moderate income households at below market prices or rents. Some programs mandate developer participation as a condition of development approval while others encourage developers to participate on a voluntary basis through density bonuses and other development incentives (see discussion of the use of Sections 37 and 45 above). Inclusionary programs are currently in place in numerous communities and municipalities in the United States. In Canada, experiments with inclusionary zoning have largely been restricted to communities in the lower mainland of British Columbia (Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey and Richmond).

II.b2 Inclusionary Zoning in the City of Toronto - Implementation Issues

As part of the background studies for Cityplan, in 1991 the former City of Toronto, in conjunction with the Ontario Ministry of Housing, commissioned an inclusionary zoning study for housing, primarily related to affordable ownership housing. A Phase II study was completed in 1993 and included a review of the legal issues related to inclusionary zoning. Through this work, a number of concerns were raised about the implementation and administration of an inclusionary zoning program. Some of the key issues identified were:

• should the municipality focus on a specific household group who may not be disadvantaged except for an inability to purchase housing within the City of Toronto?;

• how will the potential purchasers be qualified and who should dictate unit sizes and mix?;

• can the required inclusionary units be provided in a separate building?;

• should resale controls be put in place on inclusionary units to ensure they remain affordable and how would resale prices be established?; and

• if the City pre-qualifies potential inclusionary purchasers would this imply a legal obligation in the event of mortgage default?

In 1997, the Metro Housing Stakeholder Panel commissioned a study on options available to municipalities to provide for new lower-income housing which included a review of inclusionary zoning practices. In taking a closer look at inclusionary zoning programs in U.S. municipalities, the report concluded that incentive-based programs were more attractive as they were less likely to result in developer opposition and legal challenges than mandatory programs.

The Task Force suggested that inclusionary zoning, in conjunction with other planning tools, could be a useful approach to increasing the supply of affordable housing in the City. As noted above, a number of potential implementation and administrative issues have been identified which would need to addressed. Appropriate policy approaches for the inclusion of affordable housing in new residential developments will be considered in the development of a housing implementation plan as part of the Official Plan process.

III.Issues Requiring a Longer-Term Work Plan and Interdepartmental Consultation

Two of the recommendations on affordable housing will require the development of longer-term work plans, including the need for interdepartmental consultation. These relate to streamlining development approvals and issues concerning permission for and legalization of rooming houses.

III.a Ease of Development Approval:

In the past, the process for getting zoning and Official Plan amendments under the Planning Act has contributed to the increasing cost of producing new housing. Recommendation 94 of the Task Force Report addresses the need to reduce the time it takes to grant development approvals and building permits through streamlining the operations of all relevant departments. The report suggests that the development of affordable and other types of housing could be facilitated through the ability to build a development that conforms to broad general zoning categories, subject only to development review or development permits.

The streamlining of development approvals requires input from a wide range of City Departments, Boards and Commissions as well as some functions outside of the City's jurisdiction. In the context of municipal amalgamation, there is a real opportunity to remove barriers, to reduce duplication of effort, to evaluate process and linkages, and to implement best practices, including a move toward more as-of-right zoning. Following a detailed internal process review and identification of benchmarks, planning staff are currently working closely with staff from Legal, Buildings, Works and Parks to identify appropriate streamlining measures. As an example, legal staff are developing standardized agreements.

As a longer-term goal, one model which may be worthy of further consideration is the "One-Window Planning Service" which has been implemented by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). All applications under the Planning Act for which MMAH is the approval authority receive one-window service. Any provincial input to applications submitted to other approval authorities is provided through MMAH. While partner ministries (e.g. Environment and Energy, Natural Resources) are still available to provide technical support all contact is made through MMAH.

It is recommended that the UEDC direct the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to consult with the heads of the appropriate Departments to prepare, implement and report on a plan to streamline development approvals building on current efforts and taking into consideration best practices.

III.b.1 Rooming Houses in the City of Toronto:

The final recommendations of the Task Force report focus on the need to address issues facing the rooming house stock in the City of Toronto. Specifically, Recommendation 103 proposes that: (1) there should be as-of-right permission for rooming houses in commercial areas and in multiple-residential areas that abut major arterials and (2) that existing rooming houses that comply with health and safety standards should be legalized.

III.b.2 Rooming Houses - Background and Context

The Task Force has estimated that between 6,000 and 10,000 people live in rooming house accommodation in the City of Toronto. Rooming houses are one of the few types of housing that rent for $350 to $450 per month and would be affordable to people with annual incomes of less than $12,000.

Two factors distinguish rooming and boarding houses from other forms of accommodation. (Rooming houses provide accommodation only, boarding houses provide some or all meals and may provide additional services):

(1)unlike self-contained apartments they involve at least one shared facility: bathroom, kitchen, living room, which means that contact between the occupants is inevitable and co-operation and compromise (social rules) are required; and

(2)this housing has weekly, as opposed to monthly, rentals.

Rooming houses are usually the first attainable housing form for many people before they are able to afford a self-contained unit at a monthly rent. However, the supply of rooming house accommodation had declined steadily in the last 25 years. In the former City of Toronto, the number of licensed rooming houses has declined steadily from 1,202 in 1974 to 393 in 1998, a decline of almost 400%. This may have been partially offset by an increase in the number of rooming houses which are not licenced.

There have been a number of inquiries into the rooming house sector in Toronto over the years. Many of these inquiries were in response to fire fatalities or media reports focussing on "illegal" rooms. (In the former City of Toronto, between 1981 and 1994, almost 1 out of every 4 fire deaths occurred in a rooming house). This has had the effect of having resources directed at the sector by senior levels of government only for short periods typically following a crisis and increasing regulation at the municipal level.

It should be recognized that rooming housing is a form of accommodation that is not suitable for everyone. Rooming houses, and other housing forms that involve shared facilities, require much more co-operation and interaction than is the case for people living in self-contained housing. Collective living demands constant adjustments and compromises which in turn require patience, tolerance and the ability to compromise. For many people with a history of psychiatric problems, alcoholism or substance abuse this can be too difficult, even though this is often the only form of shelter they can afford.

While rooming houses provide an affordable housing option for people who are hard-to-house or who require additional support services, this may not be the most appropriate housing option. The recommendations of the Task Force for the provision of additional supportive housing units and psychiatric beds, to be funded by the Province, would be of greater assistance for this segment of the population.

III.b.3 Current Zoning Provisions and Related Activities Across the Amalgamated City

At present, municipal regulations respecting rooming houses vary considerably across the new City. In the former City of Toronto, rooming houses are permitted in all multiple-residential zones. In Etobicoke and York, they are allowed only in specific areas subject to a distancing requirement. The East York zoning by-law does not specifically permit rooming, boarding and lodging houses although the use may be allowed through a site-specific zoning amendment. Rooming houses were not permitted in North York and Scarborough.

Procedures also vary in those areas where rooming houses are a permitted use. The former City of Toronto and Etobicoke license their rooming houses while York is in the process of establishing a registration system. Preliminary discussions are underway on the best method for licensing rooming houses in the amalgamated city. Municipal Licensing and Standards Division will lead this review working with other appropriate Departments and Divisions. As well, a variety of municipal departments are typically responsible for approving and monitoring rooming houses, drawing on the expertise of Planning, Municipal Licensing and Standards, Buildings, Fire, Housing, Health and Legal staff.

In general, rooming houses are a very complex issue, not only City-wide, but even within each former municipality. For example, the former City of Toronto has special powers under the City of Toronto Act, which have enabled it to establish both rooming house and personal care rooming house by-laws. However, even this legislation has its limitations and problems with respect to issues such as operation, the provision of resident services, and maintenance and enforcement. Staff have been examining ways to strengthen the legislation where possible to improve procedures, encourage housing opportunities and maintain neighbourhood support.

In the former City of Toronto, there are a number of related activities underway. In the Parkdale community, a group of people consisting of tenants, operators, neighbours and community agency and business representatives have been meeting to resolve conflicts around bachelorettes and unlicenced rooming houses. As well, several rooming house cases are now before the Ontario Municipal Board which deal with a number of complicated planning and zoning issues. The results of these activities may have ramifications for the way rooming houses are treated throughout the amalgamated City.

III.b.4 Rooming Houses - Proposed Next Steps

It is not being recommended that new policies be brought forward for the legalization of rooming houses at this time given the matters that are now taking place in the former City of Toronto alone. Rather, it is proposed that staff continue to pursue the current activities with a view to identifying possible solutions which may be of help in other parts of the amalgamated City. It is further recommended that planning staff thoroughly review the current planning provisions and procedures respecting rooming houses and examine the opportunities for the provision of such housing City-wide in the context of a longer-term work plan in co-ordination with Buildings, Fire, Housing, Health and Legal staff.

Conclusion

This report has attempted to provide an overview of the recommendations and policy directions proposed in the final report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force relating to the housing policies of the Official Plan and to present an implementation framework.

The focus of this report has been on ten of the Task Force's recommendations which relate to affordable housing. We are pleased to report that steps have already been taken on three of these recommendations, including a "pivotal" recommendation on the condominium conversion of rental accommodation.

The discussion in the report has largely focussed on proposed approaches for the remaining seven recommendations on affordable housing relating to the housing policies of the Official Plan. Proposed approaches have been recommended for those issues that should be addressed in the short-term, those that will need to be addressed through the Official Plan process, and those that will require a longer-term work plan, including interdepartmental consultation.

We believe that the framework outlined here, in conjunction with the recommendations being made in separate reports to the various standing committees, will assist the City in developing an approach to homelessness which will be proactive and will address the barriers that have prevented solutions.

Contact Name:

Ross Paterson, (392-7863)

Principal Planner, Policy & Programs

Reviewed by:

Paul J. BedfordVirginia M. West

Executive Director and Chief PlannerCommissioner of

City Planning DivisionUrban Planning and Development Services

[p:\1999\ug\uds\pln\ud991857.pln-cc]

APPENDIX A

Specific Recommendations related to the Housing Policies in the Official Plan with "pivotal" recommendations marked in bold:

Rec. 89:The City should implement the Main Streets Intensification program and explore other strategies for promoting the supply of affordable rental housing such as the conversion of non-residential buildings and the purchase of condominiums;

Rec. 91:The Official Plan should incorporate the goal of preventing homelessness and support the use of planning tools that contribute to the preservation of existing housing and the construction of new affordable housing;

Rec. 92:Contributions toward the provision of low-income housing should be a high priority among the public benefits secured by the City in exchange for increases in height and density. These should be realised under the policy framework in the new Official Plan;

Rec. 93:The City of Toronto should request and the Province of Ontario should approve amendments to the City of Toronto Act to permit the City ro require the inclusion of affordable housing in new residential developments;

Rec. 94:The City should reduce the time it takes to grant development approvals or building permits by streamlining the operation of all relevant departments;

Rec. 96:Council should harmonize condominium conversion policies across the new City of Toronto. The new policy should attach conditions to approval of plans of condominium to ensure the replacement of low-cost rental units, consistent with the City "no net loss" policy;

Rec. 97:The Province should grant appropriate authority to the City of Toronto to control demolition of affordable rental properties;

Rec. 100:The City of Toronto should permit as-of-right, second suites wherever large-scale new developments are being approved. The City of Toronto should permit, as-of-right second suites in areas in which multi-unit residential buildings (including semi-detached houses, duplexes and triplexes) already exist, as well as any residential zones that directly abut arterial roads that are well served by public transit;

Rec. 102:Regardless of current zoning, existing second suites in single-family homes that comply with health and safety standards should be legalized. There needs to be an appropriate public hearing and appeal process for neighbours who object. The onus should be on the owner to come forward with an application for relief from the zoning by-law; and

Rec. 103:Council should permit rooming houses as-of-right in commercial and multiple-residential zones on arterial roads throughout the City. Existing rooming houses that comply with health and safety standards should be legalized.