Loading...
11/06/1997 - Minutes COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE MEETING Minutes of Thursday, November 6, 1997 Tigard City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Kathy Mattison (for Emily Cedarleaf), Andy Miller, Sally Parks, Councilor Ken Scheckla, Dedi Streich and Susan Wilson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Sharon Fleming-Barret and Cecilia Maciel. ALSO PRESENT: David Scott, Building Official, City of Tigard. The meeting was convened at approximately 12:15 p.m. 1. SELF INTRODUCTIONS: All present introduced themselves. II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 30. 1997, MEETING MINUTES The minutes were approved with the following amendments by consensus of the members present. III. WORK SESSION: A. What should the Housing Code require? The Task Force considered the "Comparison of Housing Requirements" table prepared by staff (copy attached). A question was raised regarding the intended purpose and scope of a housing program in general, and specifically in Tigard. The Task Force agreed that the stated objective of a housing program iterated on page 2 of the 9116197 staff report was the appropriate objective for Tigard's program. This objective is: "The general objective of a Community Housing Program is to reverse the debilitating effects which housing blight and deterioration cause to a community. At the center of such a program is the housing code, which establishes minimum standards essential to make dwellings safe, sanitary and fit for human habitation by governing the condition and maintenance, the supplied utilities and facilities and the occupancy." Discussion ensued concerning the appropriate level of specificity in the substantive provisions of the housing code. A review of Portland's ordinance revealed that in some cases more general, performance type language is Community Housing Task Force Meeting Minutes of November 6, 1997 Page 2 appropriate ("roofs shall be tight so as to prevent leakage"), and that in other cases, more specific language is appropriate (height of guardrails and spacing of intermediate rails). After reviewing the table and the referenced documents, the Task Force reached consensus that the substantive provisions of Portland's current housing ordinance are effective minimum standards for meeting the stated objective of a housing program and that in lieu of developing unique provisions in Tigard (which would certainly mirror Portland's provisions), Tigard should adopt the substantive provisions of Portland's ordinance in their general form and content. A copy of the pertinent provisions of Portland's ordinance are included with these minutes. B. What types of properties should be subject to the provisions of the code? The Task Force considered the "What Type of Property Should Be Subject to a Housing Code" table prepared by staff (copy attached). This consideration was done without regard to the method of enforcement (pro-active vs. reactive), but only to the applicability of the requirements. The Task Force considered each category as follows: • Owner occupied single-family: these should be included because of the general intent of the program to mitigate the effects of blight and deterioration on neighborhoods. Also, owner occupied can also mean owner abandoned, where dwellings are vacant and a nuisance. Some concern was raised regarding the applicability of requirements to owner occupied dwellings and the "intrusion" of local government into this area. It was suggested that an equity issue also is pertinent in this case. If a code applies to a rental single-family dwelling and the landlord must meet certain minimum standards which include exterior issues, then an owner occupied dwelling on the same street should also have to meet these standards. Comments made by David Sweet, City of Portland, at the 10/30/97 meeting were also discussed. According to Sweet, owner occupied dwellings can have issues which expose children and others to unhabitable living conditions. All of these issues confirm the appropriateness of including owner occupied single-family dwellings and the Task Force reached consensus on their inclusion. • Owner occupied condo, townhouse or rowhouse: the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included for the same reasons discussed above. • Renter occupied single-family: the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included for the same reasons as an owner occupied single-family dwelling with the additional reason that the Community Housing Task Force Meeting Minutes of November 6, 1997 Page 3 program is also intended to ensure that landlords (and tenants) maintain their units in compliance with minimum standards. Most housing code issues stem from renter occupied units, as evidenced by the fact that 80% of Portland's complaints are regarding rental units. • Renter occupied condo, townhouse or rowhouse: the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included for the same reasons as discussed above. • Apartments: the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included for the same reasons as stated above. • Motels and Hotels: much discussion ensued regarding the appropriateness of applying the code in these types of uses. It was determined that the intent of the program is not to regulate the "Best Westerns," but rather those properties where units are rented out in daily, weekly or monthly blocks and are essentially providing the primary housing for tenants, although the sign outside may say "Motel." Portland's ordinance provides clear guidelines to distinguish legitimate motels and hotels from those properties which are really providing housing. The Task Force reached consensus that Portland's provisions would be appropriate in this case. • Boarding Houses: the Task Force reached consensus that these types of uses should be included because they are similar to apartments because they provide the primary housing for tenants. • Homeless Shelters: the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included, but that the specific provisions should recognize the unique nature of this type of use and not be such that homeless shelters were not viable in Tigard. • Dormitories: the Task Force reached consensus that these types of uses should be included because they are similar to boarding houses. • Elderly Care Homes (less than 6 residents): the Task Force reached consensus that it is appropriate to be concerned with the maintenance of these facilities. However, concern was expressed that other agencies may already regulate these types of uses through their licensing program. Tigard's program should not be involved is that is the case. • Other housing uses such as group homes and other program related housing: the Task Force reached consensus that these uses should be included because they are also similar to boarding houses. Community Housing Task Force Meeting Minutes of November 6, 1997 Page 4 A similar concern was raised regarding other agency licensing and the potential redundancy of Tigard's program in that case. Staff will review and report on the issue of other agency licensing programs and potential redundancy of Tigard's program. C. How should the code be enforced? The Task Force considered the "How Should the Code Be Enforced?" table prepared by staff (copy attached). The Task Force reached consensus that enforcement should at a minimum be driven by complaints and referrals for all units subject to the provisions of the ordinance. It would be the City's responsibility to pursue enforcement and compliance on any matter referred to it. Discussion ensued on the issue of inspectors doing "self referral" inspections. It was agreed that if an inspector discovers violations in units within a building or complex to the extent that it is suspected similar violations would exist in other units, that further inspections would be appropriate even though no complaint was received for those specific units. Similarly, if an inspector noticed blatant violations while driving around in the course of other business, it would be appropriate for the inspector to pursue enforcement. It was agreed that the issue of inspector "self referral" was appropriately left to the administrative policies of the City. Further discussion centered on the issue of pro-active inspections and enforcement. Questions raised included: Is it necessary to pursue a pro-active program for some targeted group of units? Is the problem large enough in Tigard to justify this? Since the Council has already directed staff to pursue enforcement against at least one of the most problem complexes in Tigard, would further pro-active inspections be necessary or would complaints and referrals, combined with public awareness and education, be adequate to address the problem? It was suggested that a target group of units be identified (such as older than 25 years and more than 5 units) and that a pro-active program address all of these units that exist and as they reach that age. Initially, a letter could be sent to the owner offering to provide a courtesy inspection to identify violations (for a fee) and to give them a certain amount of time to correct any violations before the formal enforcement mechanism would begin. Another option considered was to target properties for pro-active enforcement pursuant to criteria developed by Portland's task force. They identified several criteria which relate to a high potential for violations. If at least four of these factors are present, systematic, regular inspections would be performed: • more than two stories, • previous multiple complaints, • owners with a history of compliance problems, • built prior to 1945,