Removing Barriers to Single Room Occupancy

Development in Toronto

The Community Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

This report sets out a model for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in Toronto, identifies barriers to the development of such housing, and proposes that the City proceed with pilot projects.

Financial Implications:

No direct financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council support, in principle, the use of City incentives and regulatory tools to encourage the development of SRO (Single Room Occupancy) housing by private firms and not-for-profit groups;

(2)staff proceed with an open competition for SRO pilot projects based on the models outlined in this report (i.e., Market, Assisted, Supportive), with the following incentives (subject to Council approval): specific land sites; financial incentives from the Capital Revolving Fund; and other incentives that may be made available by the Provincial or Federal Governments;

(3)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report back on a zoning model and other regulatory changes required to support SRO development as outlined in this report, addressing issues such as location, parking, unit size and culinary/sanitary facilities;

(4)Council request the Province of Ontario to support SRO development through: changes to the Ontario Building Code and other regulations; removing the eight-year limitation on the new Multi-Residential assessment class; providing provincial sites at nominal cost; funding rent supplements; and providing supportive housing funding where required;

(5)Council request the Federal Government to support SRO development by: making federal sites available at nominal cost; and providing incentives such as favourable mortgage insurance terms and additional Residential Rehabilitation Program Assistance Program funding; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

In order to address the shortage of low-cost housing in Toronto, the Mayor's Homelessness Action Taskforce (Recommendation #90) proposed Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units as a legitimate and viable form of housing. SROs are permanent rental housing specifically created for single, low-income people, and range from private rooms with shared kitchen and/or bathroom facilities to private self-contained rooms with shared amenities; range in size from 150 to 400 sq. ft.; rent from $275.00 to $400.00 per month; and may, or may not, have on-site support services. The Task Force recommended zoning and regulatory changes to facilitate development of SROs and that the City initiate at least three SRO pilot projects.

This report outlines models for SRO housing and steps required to remove barriers to SRO development in Toronto. This work is based on a recent design study and charette undertaken by Van Nostrand DiCastri architects, with funding from the City and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They:

-reviewed existing precedents or examples of SRO housing locally and elsewhere in North America and by-law/code restrictions which impede their development;

-consulted with potential residents to determine their needs and perspectives;

-held a day long design charette (workshop) which brought together interested parties to generate new models of SRO accommodation; and

-are producing detailed design drawings and proformas of models which can be produced in Toronto.

This work illustrated the social, economic and planning advantages of SRO accommodation. From a social perspective, SROs offer privacy, dignity, independence and opportunities for social interaction to residents. From an economic perspective smaller units and shared amenities cost less to construct than conventional apartments and offer a low-cost housing alternative. From a planning perspective SROs work if they are located along public transit lines, close to support services and employment opportunities for residents.

The background work reveals prototypes for new SRO housing in Toronto and identifies zoning and regulatory changes that would have to be made to support SRO development. It is proposed that staff take steps to proceed with SRO pilot projects, using incentives and tools that are available at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.

Comments:

Research done for the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force demonstrates that there are some 220,000 single individuals in Ontario who make less than $15,000.00 per year and who, as a consequence, can only afford to spend $375.00 per month in rent. However, a shortfall of 100,000 low rent units demonstrates a strong demand for units renting for less than $400.00 per month. As well, there has been a steady decline in rooming house units (from approximately 1,200 in 1974 to 393 in 1998) and other forms of low-cost singles' housing.

History of Single Room Occupancy Accommodation:

Single Room Occupancy (SRO) accommodation dates from the late nineteenth century and provided housing for middle and low-income people, mainly male, who migrated to urban areas in search of employment. SROs were an acceptable form of low-cost housing for middle and lower income individuals. They generally provided a single room with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities in a range of building forms including lodging houses and residential hotels, rooming houses and boarding homes.

Following the Second World War, the expansion of the suburbs and the consequent decline of inner city neighbourhoods along with the implementation of zoning and minimum standards legislation made it increasing difficult to finance SRO developments or obtain refinancing to rehabilitate existing stock. Physical conditions and management standards declined and SROs in some instances came into disrepute. Eventually the process of urban renewal and gentrification led to a rapid decline in the numbers of SRO units.

With an increase in homelessness and a crisis in affordability many North American cities have recognized the important role that SROs might play in providing solutions to these problems. Many cities have introduced policies to stem the loss of SRO stock and to encourage the production of new SRO developments. San Diego, California has been a leader in this regard and other cities have followed suit.

New SRO developments have endeavoured to do away with the negative stereotypes of crime ridden "flop houses" or places of last resort that characterized traditional SROs by providing:

-permanent accommodation with a mixed tenant base;

-on-site support services or access to them for those housing more vulnerable tenants;

-financing from a wide range of sources; and

-in some instances, community economic development opportunities for residents by employing them to fulfil maintenance, security and other duties.

As well, to distinguish them from their predecessors many jurisdictions changed the name of SRO units to "efficiency suites", "living units" or "apartment suites".

Lessons From Elsewhere:

From the early 1970s to the mid 1980s, San Diego demolished approximately 1,200 SRO units. From the mid 1980s onward, however, the city became a national leader by introducing legislation which prevented the further demolition and conversion of SRO units; putting in place legislation to rehabilitate approximately 400 units and create over 2,400 new units.

Lessons learned from the first new SRO developed, the Baltic Inn, were then used to overhaul San Diego's planning, building and fire code legislation and to facilitate the construction of these new units. Altogether eighteen SRO hotels were created and nine others were renovated between 1987 and 1994.

Measures put in place included:

-establishing an SRO task force which included builders, developers, planners, architects, City staff and others to recommend necessary zoning and building standards changes to lower development costs and encourage new supply;

-creating a State housing definition of a 150 sq. ft. "living unit" which allowed for bathroom and kitchen facilities below the previous standard;

-making a substantial building and code changes to reduce and eliminate parking requirements, allow for greater densities, tax reductions and building on commercial or industrial sities.

These and other changes created an environment in which the private sector could participate in affordable housing production. Other cities such as Portland, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Calgary and Vancouver have followed suit.

Single Room Occupancy Accommodation as an Option for Toronto:

Toronto has numerous examples of congregate forms of singles' housing, including rooming houses and boarding homes, and low-income singles' apartment buildings. There has recently been considerable interest in supporting these and other forms of housing to meet the needs of low-income singles who, for various reasons, have difficulty accessing and maintaining safe and affordable housing.

The Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force recommended single room occupancy units as a legitimate and potentially viable form of housing for low-income and homeless individuals (Recommendation #90):

"As part of its affordable housing strategy, the City of Toronto should pursue the Single Room Occupancy (SRO) option for housing with supports to house homeless singles. The City and the Province should make zoning and regulatory changes to facilitate renovation and new construction of SROs. These would include density maximums, unit sizes, parking requirements and building and code regulations. The City should initiate at least three SRO pilots. These should vary according to acquisition or new construction, location, number and size of units, financing and management techniques."

In order to advance this recommendation, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department, jointly with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, recently embarked on a Singles' Housing Design Study and charette which:

-reviewed existing precedents or examples of SRO housing locally and elsewhere in North America and by-law/code restrictions which impede their development;

-consulted with potential users to determine their needs and perspectives;

-included a day long design charette (workshop) which grew out of the precedent study and which brought together potential users either currently living in single room occupancy or shelter accommodation, operators from the private sector and /or community development workers, architects individuals with development and/or finance expertise and others to generate new models of single room occupancy accommodation; and

-is in the process of producing detailed design drawings and proformas of models which could be produced in Toronto.

For the purposes of the Singles' Housing Design Study SROs were defined as set out in the Task Force report as housing which:

-ranges from private rooms with shared kitchen and/or bathroom facilities to private self-contained rooms containing kitchenette and bathroom facilities with other shared amenities such as laundry and common spaces;

-generally range in size from 150 to 400 sq. ft.;

-generally rent from $275.00 to $400.00 per month; and

-may or may not have on-site support services.

The background study and charette process identified many of the management issues, physical and social design issues, and financial and regulatory issues to be addressed related to market and non-market SRO developments. Management issues include the types of services to be provided to the resident population; staff roles and responsibilities; residents' rights, responsibilities and codes of behaviour; and the tenant selection process. Physical and social design issues include the importance of integrating the SRO development with the scale and character of the surrounding neighbourhood; providing exterior amenity space to residents such as balconies and rooftop gardens; ensuring that safety and security, durability and maintenance and enhanced livability drive the design of the units and shared amenity space. Financial and regulatory issues include the significant zoning (land use and parking); building code (room size, facility requirements, building materials and accessability); realty taxation and other issues that currently impede SRO development.

The background research into existing precedents and the design charette process suggests that there are three SRO prototypes (see Appendix A, attached) which could serve as models for Toronto: (a) Market, (b) Assisted, and (c) Supportive Housing.

-Market examples of SRO housing provide lower-end market rents ranging from $425.00 to $600.00 per month to working poor individuals for units of 200 to 324 sq. ft. They do not generally provide on-site support or social services, however, in some instances management may facilitate resident access to support service providers from community-based agencies that come into the building to serve clients (known as de-linked services).

-Assisted projects provide subsidized or relatively affordable rents ranging from $325.00 to $425.00 per month to low-income residents and do not generally provide on-site support services. As in the case of the market model, residents may receive access to de-linked support services.

-Supportive projects can be divided further still into those projects which house an integrated tenant population of low-income, formerly homeless individuals and shelter residents, and residents with specific needs and those projects which house a non-integrated population or individuals with specific needs such as formerly homeless youth. Both integrated and non-integrated examples of supportive housing provide on-site support services through the housing provider (known as linked services) and/or through a community-based provider (de-linked) and in both cases rents range from $325.00 per month or 30 percent of income.

The background research and charette process demonstrated that market SRO projects tend to be larger (80 to 100 units) than assisted and supportive SRO projects (40 to 70 units). All three models provide 24-hour security, an opportunity to site housing along main streets or in close proximity to public transit thereby increasing viability by lowering development costs and, where possible, storefront commercial space.

Provincial Feasibility Study of SRO Housing:

The Province also recognizes the potential of SROs as a low-cost form of housing. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing recently commissioned a study to assess the economic feasibility of private sector involvement in the production of single room occupancy accommodation in Ontario. The provincial study examines the legislative and financial barriers that currently impede the development of this housing form.

Single Room Occupancy accommodation is not clearly recognized under current zoning and building code legislation. Critical barriers to SRO development are parking requirements and minimum unit size requirements as they would likely be interpreted under the Ontario Building Code. The study recommends that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's Buildings and Standards Branch develop and promote model by-laws and clarify sections of the building code that would impact on the development of SROs. It also points to the example set by California which established a special demonstration ordinance to determine and eliminate building code and zoning restrictions to SRO development.

The Ontario Building Code sets out 275 sq. ft. as a minimum unit size with specific parameters for living, dining, kitchen and sleeping areas. Allowance should be made for smaller units based on existing precedents, and potential user and operator feedback. For example, the study used a minimum unit size of 210 sq. ft. for a market SRO development geared toward working poor individuals a non-market or more traditional SRO geared toward formerly homeless or at risk individuals who can live independently with minimal supports. The provincial study demonstrated that reducing minimum unit size further to 175 sq. ft. would be an added incentive as it would allow for more units; however marketability of smaller units would be in question. Other incentives included increasing over-all building efficiency where possible, allowing for wood frame construction and adding commercial space to cross-subsidize the residential component of a project.

From the perspective of financial feasibility the most important factor to be addressed is realty taxation. At the residential tax rate acceptable returns within the 10 percent to 15 percent range are achievable and can stimulate new investment without subsidies. However, under the multi-residential tax class returns are simply too low to generate investment. The study further recommends that the Fair Municipal Tax Act be amended to remove the eight-year limit on the use of a new tax class for the development of rental housing.

Conclusion:

Small scale SRO housing units which rent from $325.00 to $600.00 per month and are either self-contained or provide some degree of shared amenities and support services present a viable solution to the significant crisis in affordability faced by many low-income singles today. These units can be created either through acquisition and rehabilitation of existing stock or through the production of new supply. However, in order to make such developments a truly viable option, the City in collaboration with the Province must take the necessary steps to address the regulatory and financial barriers to their creation. This includes:

-recognizing SROs as a legitimate form of housing by creating an appropriate zoning model;

-determining and eliminating building code and other regulatory impediments to their development such as restrictive parking (lower parking requirements to levels previously permitted for social housing projects), and minimum unit size requirements;

-encouraging the Province to make the necessary changes to allow for the use of alternative building materials that do not compromise the safety and quality of housing for residents;

-encouraging the Province to amend the Fair Municipal Tax Act to remove the current eight-year limit on the use of the tax class for new multi-residential development;

-initiating one or two demonstration projects to encourage the creation of new supply and identify further impediments to SRO development.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell

Tel: 392-7885/Fax: 392-0548

(A copy of the Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Community Services Committee for its meeting on July 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

--------

Mr. Vance Latchford appeared before the Community Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.