POLICY CRITERIA & POLICY SUPPORTS & SUCCESS Infographics

July 4, 2023Pages 105–1062 sections

Visual summaries of policy criteria, including discussion on secondary rentals, voluntary compliance challenges, and business perspectives on tenant assistance requirements.

1 CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Tobias called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

secondary rentalsvoluntary policy complianceincome testingrisk of project financial viability

POLICY CRITERIA

The Tenant Assistance Policy would come into effect when:

Rezoning application is submitted to the District, and
If approved, the rezoning would result in a loss of rental units, requiring tenants to move out.

May also be used as Best Practice with other application types, such as Development Permits.

WHAT THIS TOPIC INCLUDES...

types of rental the Policy will apply to
types of development applications the Policy will apply to
which tenants on site are eligible for support

Discussion Questions

What are some of the opportunities and challenges of the Policy applying to secondary rentals?
What do you think about encouraging voluntary Policy compliance with applications that do not require rezoning? For example, Development Permits
Are there any other thoughts on the qualifying criteria you would like to share?

1. Secondary Rentals

level playing field - all development treated the same (10 storey vs single family as purpose build rental)
scale is important and can be more efficient - secondary rentals often in smaller dev (a lot of work for a handful of people)
scale of development
process should be streamlined for both sides (landlord & renters)
flexibility in regulation
could relax regulation during higher vacancy right (to spur development)
policy adjusted for overall Saanich vacancy rate

2. Voluntary Compliance

(No specific feedback notes provided)

3. Other Thoughts

tenant eligibility
needs based system - some tenants are in higher need
would rather see greater focus on more vulnerable tenants without other options
could tailor program to tenants in need (not a one size fits all based on length of tenancy)
income testing (not blanket application)
+1
length of tenure
policy has to be distributed based on need (equitable distribution may leave some tenants evicted & without housing)
For new construction we need to encourage not discourage new units. I would separate this out and focus on the existing renovations.

Page 105–106

POLICY SUPPORTS & SUCCESS

WHAT THIS TOPIC INCLUDES...

communication plan
support in finding new housing & financial compensation
special consideration for vulnerable tenant support

Discussion Questions

What might be some of the biggest challenges for your business when it comes to meeting the requirements of a Tenant Assistance Policy?
How might the District help to support your business / the sector to meet the Policy requirements?
How might the District follow up to ensure that the requirements are being met?
Beyond the TAP, how can the District protect existing affordable rental stock in Saanich?

1. Biggest Challenges

ensuring tenant choice - difficult to support individual needs / preferences on larger scale
difficult to guarantee supports (relocation, etc.) - expectation management
especially finding new housing that meets unique needs
risk of too strong of requirement (for developers to be responsible for relocation)
maintenance issues of older buildings - could be easier/ cost effective to leave vacant
tenant "double dipping" - requirements on tenants being able to apply for TAP multiple times
- Burnaby TAP - clause to not double dip, Victoria doesn't have this so there is potential to qualify twice. Difficult for developers.
- may happen more when property manager is different than property owner or with owners that have a large portfolio
different consideration of compensation / credits for tenure of development
(today) window for rental is closed based on cost of land, etc.
risk of discouraging landlords from renting during redevelopment process - depending on vacancy rate
rezoning can be a multi-year process (TAP could be a discouragement to developers to rent properties during process)
can't guarantee housing but financial compensation is easier

Vulnerable Tenants

for older / senior tenants, relocation can be challenging - building design in rental stock
BC housing prioritizes senior housing / relocation (can be easier for them)
people with mental health issues have very little options
specific and unique needs - need advocacy to makes sure they have a subsidized, accessible option (creates demand for new units)

ROFR (Right of First Refusal)

little uptake on ROFR (for new rental development)
most people only want to move once
to be shared with residents (provided by municipality so its standardized across all projects)
potential for BC Housing partnership to support ROFR (not at developer's expense)
need clarity on: tenants coming into new buildings - subsidized market unit (to meet policy) or "affordable" rental unit (based on income)
for new construction, a ROFR is really discouraging if it is forced, as sometimes the tenants in a structure that has been neglected by a former owner are not the most desirable to have in a larger building.
rarely ever acted on (policy vs practice) - often written in policy but little impact
too difficult in application (no certainty that people will come back)
could impact financial viability of project (by taking up defined 'affordable' homes)

Political Awareness & Communication

disconnect between policy & practice (in political sphere) - awareness & understanding of Councillors - what developers are expected to achieve
risk - political dynamic outside application of policy (public hearings - tenants facing eviction/relocation) -- could stop landlords from renting during rezoning
resources - to navigate housing relocation process

2. Supports

long-term support through partnership with BC Housing
tenants below income line (& require subsidized housing) - financial compensation is not sustainable for long term need
need a link between municipal policy + provincial subsidized housing supply (through BC housing)

3. Follow Up

no need to overthink - make part of the process
temporal policy that needs review & evaluation on a regular basis

4. Protecting Existing Rentals

TAP would push dev to more greenfield sites (not occupied)
maintenance / upgrades difficult when people are living there (TAP would protect them)
economics must work for there to be more affordable rental
many people in Vic market with protected rents who are unable to move

Aging Rental Stock

all stock in Victoria from 60s/70s - older, debt free individual property owners >> move to institutional owners today
risk of natural disasters - need to replace older housing stock (seismic proofing)
need more units + sustainability goals (older bldgs are not environmentally efficient)
need to ensure continued dev of purpose built rental (not necessarily protection of existing)
protecting rental stock is counterproductive - need to be redeveloped
what's helping us redevelop affordable rental stock? (6 to 60 units) - need mix of scales
affordable rental bldgs = older (do we want to protect this kind of housing when we need better performing homes/buildings?)

Potential Supports from District?

flexible site density allowance on same site
short-term tenancy as an option for landlords (especially during lower vacancy)

General Commentary

In a nutshell I think that this topic is a tough one. I think the province really needs to step up and create a framework as we are treating a symptom of a problem that one municipality cannot really address alone. The issue also is that as of today project fundamentals for rental at least are in the toilette. So then how do we not discourage development in this environment, while also creating a system that when there are excess profits (and sometimes in the cycle they are large) some of these end up going towards those impacted.

I really think a lot of the tenancy issues need to be discussed at the UBCM level etc and raised provincially (and federally to discourage policies encouraging pension funds and other conduits to pay too much to acquire assets with a long-time horizon and cheap capital to wait until they can evict and increase rents). Another option would be to provide a modicum of support via the allocation of CACs (this is coming I believe) to the tenants rather than to municipality.

Major renovations are tricky as sometimes it is used as a loophole, but I think that the province has made some progress in this regard. I would focus efforts on making sure that the eviction due to renovation is really warranted and non avoidable. We essentially redid the whole envelop of a building (windows, partial wall sheeting, siding, balcony rebuilds, roof) and did not evict one tenant in the process. We could have under current legislation evicted most if not all tenants. Many times, eviction is avoidable, when it is used.

The only thing I can think for new construction is allocating some of the CACs to help tenants who are displaced. More units should not be discouraged, and the municipality also receives additional revenues from the development and future taxes. Hence they could share in some of the costs, while not discouraging Development A v. Development B.

Page 105–106