To Whom It May Concern, The…

To Whom It May Concern,

The City of Brampton has several comments and questions in relation to the Environmental
Registry of Ontario posting 019-6173, Proposed Amendment to O. Reg. 232/18: Inclusionary
Zoning. Through Housing Brampton, the City’s first Housing Strategy, the City conducted
significant consultation and engagement with our residents, the development industry, other
levels of government, and the non-profit sector to identify how to support the development of a
full mix and range of housing options to meet Brampton’s housing needs. With growing
affordability challenges identified by Brampton residents, the City’s objective was to ensure the
delivery of a full mix of housing options, including affordable housing options for people based
on their incomes rather than market conditions. Market rate housing has become inherently
unaffordable to a large portion of households.

Through the Housing strategy, a significant number of actions and deliverables have been
committed to that directly align with the stated objective of Bill 23 by supporting the housing of
Brampton residents and delivering affordable housing options. Inclusionary Zoning has been
identified as a key planning tool to support the development of affordable housing and deliver on
one of the Big Moves identified in Housing Brampton, “Attainable Home-ownership Options”.

The current regulatory framework provides flexibility for local market conditions to be evaluated
and for the City to undertake a process to determine an appropriate set aside rate, affordability
period, provide relevant incentives to offset impacts for weaker market areas, and set
affordability thresholds using an income-based approach for affordable ownership (i.e.,
determine affordable house prices for households at each income decile, focused on income
deciles 4-6) and market-based approach for affordable rental (i.e., use 100% Average Market
Rents according to annual CMHC reporting). To date, the City has undertaken significant work
to evaluate these factors and have worked to identify a proposed policy framework that
represents a made in Brampton approach reflective of current market conditions.

General Comments:
A fulsome response to Bill 23’s proposed changes are set out in Appendix 1. Below is a
summary of Brampton comments regarding the major proposed changes through Bill 23:

Proposal: Establish an upper limit on the number of units that would be required
to be set aside as affordable, set at 5% of the total number of units (or 5% of the
total gross floor area of the total residential units, not including common areas)

City Comment:
A standardized, Province-wide approach does not consider the viability of Inclusionary
Zoning in different market areas of the city or considering the municipal investments in
MTSAs to support transit-oriented development. A standardized rate of 5% limits the
ability for the City to optimize municipal investment and impacts the number of affordable
housing units received through new developments, influencing the achievement of the
City’s housing targets.

As part of the Inclusionary Zoning work being completed, the City is undertaking a co-design
approach with the development industry, non-profit sector, housing advocates,
the Region of Peel, and residents to determine the optimal and appropriate set aside
rate for each market area of the city and transitioning this set aside rate over time
(allowing the market time to adjust). This is a best practice identified through
benchmarking analysis conducted of Inclusionary Zoning policies internationally.

A flexible, market-based approach maximizes the use of Inclusionary Zoning as a
planning tool to effectively deliver more affordable housing to residents. Bill 23’s
proposal to dictate the set aside rate undermines the proven best practices for
Inclusionary Zoning. This also enables the City to effectively use the background work
conducted to date, including the Assessment Report, Peer Review, and Additional
Analysis, to evaluate development viability with Inclusionary Zoning applied in different
market areas.

City Recommendation:
 The City recommends that the current regulatory framework be maintained to enable
municipalities to evaluate market conditions, leverage investments, and increase the
affordable housing supply through Inclusionary Zoning.

 Proposal: Establish a maximum period of twenty-five (25) years over which the
affordable housing units would be required to remain affordable

City Comment:
 The 25-year maximum does not deliver on the objective of maintaining affordability over
the life of the unit or increasing the supply of affordable housing over the long-term.

City Recommendation:
 The City recommends a minimum period of twenty-five years affordability be identified in
the regulation to ensure long-term affordability is maintained.

Proposal: Amendments would also prescribe the approach to determining the
lowest price/rent that can be required for inclusionary zoning units, set at 80% of
the average resale purchase price of ownerships units or 80% of the average
market rent (AMR) for rental units

City Comment:
 Further details on how an 80% of average resale purchase price of ownership meets the
true affordability needs of Brampton residents is required to support a shift from an
income-based approach to a market-based approach to defining affordability.

City Recommendation:
 The City recommends maintaining the current Provincial Policy Statement definition of
affordable, subject to the revisions proposed in Appendix 1.
 The City supports setting the affordable rental unit price at 80% average market rent
(AMR) using data from the annual CMHC Rental Market Report.

The City of Brampton would also like to reiterate previous comments provided through past
legislation that the Province consider expanding the scope of applicability of Inclusionary Zoning
beyond Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs). This expansion would provide
additional opportunities for the City of Brampton to increase its affordable housing supply across
strategic growth areas (as per the Provincial planning documents), which would implement the
objectives of Bill 23 better than the limited geographic applicability to PMTSAs that are currently
in place.

Questions:
 How did the Province determine a 5% set aside rate as the maximum set aside rate?
What process was taken to evaluate market conditions to determine this set aside rate?
 Long-term affordability has been identified as a critical element of Brampton’s
Inclusionary Zoning policy framework based on consultation conducted to date. The City
is interested in understanding the reason for limiting affordability to a 25-year period?
Why not set a minimum of 25 years rather than a maximum?
The City would like to understand the method the Province proposed to use to determine
the affordability rate. The City would like to ensure that the definition of affordable
remains reflective of the true affordability needs of residents and aligns with the income-based
approach in the current affordability definition outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement.

The City of Brampton would like to thank the Province for the opportunity to provide feedback
and comments on the proposed changes.

Sincerely,
Steve Ganesh, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner (A),
Planning, Building & Growth Management