The Revised Official Plan Amendment to Encourage the Development of Units for Households with Children will be discussed at the June 16 Planning & Growth Management Committee Meeting.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pg/agendas/2010-06-16-pg39-ai.htm
The report is a very, very thorough analysis of family housing downtown.
PDF of the report with amendments:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-30751.pdf
It looks like 5% will be the recommended target. From the report:
Over the last few years a number of rezonings for new developments in Ward 20 have
been approved with one of the conditions being that 10 percent of their units have three
or more bedrooms. A few of these developments have employed innovative design
features such as changeable floor plans and knock-out panels to allow some units to be
adapted for different household sizes over time.
This 10 percent requirement, with certain qualifications, has also been proposed in the
past two planning reports on the subject. An earlier report, prepared in August 2008, also
examined a number of data sources to determine the appropriateness of using the 10
percent figure as part of an Official Plan Amendment. It showed that, based on the 2006
Census data, units with three or more bedrooms made up about 9 percent of the total
dwellings in buildings with 5 and more storeys. This represents a snapshot of the
percentage of larger units occupied at that time. Staff is of the opinion that additional
data, if generated, would reveal that three-bedroom units comprised a greater percentage
of the total units prior to 2006, and a lesser percentage after that point due to the trend
toward the construction of smaller units. As such, this figure would be lower than 9
percent, if more recent development activity and tenure were considered.
Another relevant source of information was City Planning’s “Living Downtown” study
highlighted in the November 2007 and August 2008 Planning reports. The study,
undertaken in December 2006, surveyed downtown residents to find out more about the
nature of the population and the reasons for living in the area. Details of the survey
results can be found at:
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/living_downtown_nov1.pdf
Among other matters, the study examined occupancy patterns of households living in
newer housing (built in and after 2001) and more established housing (built before 2001)
in the Downtown. The study showed that only about 7 percent of all households in the
newer stock lived in units with three or more bedrooms, whereas 15 percent of
households in the more established stock resided in larger units. Although the survey
involved various structure types, the vast majority of units analyzed were in apartment
buildings with 5 or more storeys.
In terms of sales activity, the August 2008 report provided data for new condominiums
sold from 2002 to 2007 (as reported by Urbanation). It indicated that, excluding
penthouses, three-bedroom units comprised less than 2 percent of all unit sales.
When looking at active applications in the development pipeline (from 2003 to 2007), it
was found that 4.1 percent of all proposed residential units in the downtown area
consisted of three-bedrooms. For apartment developments only, this figure decreased
slightly to 3.8 percent.
During the preliminary consultation process, referenced in the May 2009 report, one
developer indicated that many of the projects he has worked on contain about 5 percent
of a combination of two-bedroom plus den and three-bedroom units. Recent sales data
shows that a reasonable number of new developments are offering more than 5 percent of
their units as a combination of two-bedrooms with den/solarium, two-storey lofts, three-
bedrooms and penthouses. Also, in the Waterfront area (e.g. East Bayfront), contractual
arrangements are made with private developers on public land to ensure that 5 percent of
units contain three or more bedrooms.
Residents’ and ratepayers’ associations have vocalized significant support for the recently
proposed policy which recommended that 10 percent of units be set aside in larger
projects for units suitable for households with children. One comment suggested that the
policy should be amended to target up to 20 percent of units for this purpose.
The previous draft amendment proposed that 10 percent of the units be built with three or
more bedrooms, but allowed the option of convertible units. To recognize the
development industry’s concerns, yet provide some incentive for the initial construction
of three-bedroom units, staff has now reduced the proposed requirement for three-
bedroom units to 5 percent. This figure, while typically higher than the percentage of
three-bedroom units provided in new developments, is considered by staff to be
achievable with refinements to products now being offered.
The 10 percent requirement should remain in place where the convertible option is
preferred by the developer. An additional option involving combinable units (knock-out
panels) is discussed later in this report.
Proposed Direction: That the percentage of units to be constructed with three or more
bedrooms under the policy be reduced to 5 percent, and that the 10 percent requirement
continue to apply where the option of convertible units is chosen. The discussion on
knock-out panels later in this report also suggests a further possible option, with a
greater percentage requirement, where combinable units using “knock-out panels” are
preferred.
And a section on financial incentives:
The policy amendment as proposed is concerned with stimulating the development of
these units, first and foremost. Staff believes that this can be accomplished through the 5
percent requirement that may, in some cases, be achievable through adjustments in
condominium products now being designed and constructed. The policy also offers
greater flexibility as it provides developers with the alternative choices of using either
convertible or combinable suites. Although these options involve some additional cost in
terms of design and marketing, these costs should not be prohibitive. Furthermore,
increasing the range of consumer choice should also improve the marketability of these
projects.
Use of funds secured through the application of Section 37 of the Planning Act has been
raised by BILD and others as a means of improving the affordability of these units.
However these funds, although not typically substantial in amount relative to the value of
the density/height increase, are used for a variety of other important purposes. Some of
these include the provision of community services and facilities considered desirable to
maintaining and attracting family households.
In their submission, BILD also recommended that development charges for three-
bedroom units be reduced. This reduction could be offered to the developer to lower the
costs of producing three-bedroom units. Alternatively, the reduced development charge
could be passed on directly to the consumer where two combinable suites are purchased
as one larger suite.
In previous reports, staff has mentioned that the development charge now levied for a
three or four-bedroom unit is the same as it is for two bedrooms, so there is currently no
disincentive to building larger units. Any decrease in development charges could
conceivably be achieved through unit reconfigurations at the outset of the project, prior to
the issuance of a building permit. In the example cited by BILD, some smaller units
could be amalgamated at the initial purchasers’ request during pre-sales, so that they
would be treated as one rather than two units for the purposes of assigning a development
charge.
There is an inherent difficulty associated with diverting limited public funds generated
through Section 37 or development charges to expensive housing, when so many lower
income people are not adequately housed. These limited funds are required to contribute
to a number of other important affordable housing and community services and
infrastructure needs.
An additional concern associated with providing financial incentives is that families with
children may not necessarily occupy these units. This proposal does not attempt to dictate
occupancy, but rather is designed to facilitate the construction of a greater range of
housing choice that includes larger, three-bedrooms which could be used by larger
households with children.
Expanding the range of housing opportunities is itself an important goal. This is a
principle espoused in the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe, and the City’s Official Plan policies. As such, the provision of a
variety of housing opportunities, including a range of unit types, is a matter of good
planning.
Proposed Direction: That no financial incentives be provided to encourage three-
bedroom units. 
