Our Official Community Plan

Sorry for the delay in responding - we reached out to the Tofino Housing Corporation for a fulsome answer to your question:

"The challenge with the term "affordable housing" is it is relative to household size, composition and income, and individual circumstance (e.g. physical mobility). Many people equate "affordable housing" with social housing - that is housing that has been supported by government money. In that way it is sometimes associated with a need for low-income households. However, with rising rental rates and housing prices now many people who the census would qualify as above the low-income cutoff also need non-market housing as there is not housing available at an affordable price (30% of income) in the private market. However, if you just define affordable housing as 30% of income then there are certain types of housing in Tofino that would be "affordable" to a household making $200,000 and other housing that wouldn't be affordable. The temptation then is to define, like in the Tofino DCC bylaw, an income level that applies to "affordable housing". The problem with that definition is it is too low for the delivery of family-oriented housing and too high for studio suites. So for example the average household income in Tofino was $80,645 in 2015 and based on the DCC bylaw definition it should be only for households making no more than $64,516. This means monthly rent should be no more than 30% of gross income or $1612. If an organisation was renting a studio at $1500 we would be hard pressed to convince Tofitians this was "affordable". In contrast, the organisations would be hard-pressed to deliver every 3 or 4 bedroom family housing unit offered at less than $1612 per month unless supported by grants and low-interest rate financing (and even then those programs wouldn't call for all the 3 or 4 bedroom units to be less than $1612 per month). Certainly it would be almost impossible to get a 3 or 4 bedroom price restricted resident restricted home to purchase price where the mortgage, property tax, utility fees and insurance would hit that $1612 target. 

Some municipalities have set income levels and rental rates by unit size, but I find those targets don't get adjusted frequently enough and usually there is still a need for "affordable housing" (e.g. non-market) that is above those income levels and rental rates. 

There are so many factors to consider and I think a much better approach is a housing strategy that addresses all aspects of the housing spectrum and sets priorities and targets rather than getting caught up in a crude question of what is "affordable housing" and what is not "affordable housing". There will be some "affordable housing" that needs to be deeply subsidized and targeted at those on fixed incomes (seniors, disability or social assistance), some "affordable housing" moderately subsidized and targeted at single or two-person hourly wage earner households and somewhat subsidized or incentivized "affordable housing" and targeted at households with one or more people with salaried employment. And finally there is a need for local government policy to drive the development of market housing that remains at least somewhat "affordable" to people in the local workforce even if it is not subsidized. These are all different types of "affordable housing" in my opinion and very little of it will happen without different levels of government intervention and financial support.

In regards to your second question, there are no minimum lot sizes in the OCP - lot size and density will be determined through the zoning amendment process.

1) Although it is mentioned 43 times, the 2021 Official Community Plan (OCP) does not define "affordable". It is a notoriously difficult term to define, people have many different perspectives about what "affordable" means depending on their life experiences. The decision not to include definitions in the OCP was deliberate for two main reasons. Not including a definition of "affordable" gives Council leeway to consider unique development proposals. Secondly, past experience with affordable housing projects seems to indicate that precise definitions actually impede the development of affordable housing. The following policy statement from section 4.3 from the OCP sums up the intent of the OCP in regards to affordable housing.

"Critical opportunities for improving access to appropriate and affordable housing in the District of Tofino include developing supported housing for vulnerable populations; creating permanent, year-round rental housing for low income and modest-income residents, especially those with children; creating entry-level homeownership units that are affordable to first-time buyers and moderate-income households, and encouraging the provision of shared rental accommodation for seasonal non-resident employees."

2) The  2021 OCP includes a policy for first-time buyers.

"Support actions to develop entry-level housing, affordable to first-time buyers and moderate-income households."

The District of Tofino does work closely with developers through zoning and sometimes the building permit process to ensure that new development is accessible as possible to local residents. 

Unlike Vancouver which operates under different legislation (Vancouver Charter) municipalities such as Tofino do not have the authority to impose taxes and thus can not take unilateral action on such matters, although the District can lobby for such items. Banff faces similar issues but operates under a different legislative framework (Canada, Alberta)

The proposed OCP policy will support the District in lobbying the Province on affordable housing and tax reform.