02/18/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Answering questions from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Johnson said the number of people who would qualify as special category tenants under the existing ordinance or the recommendations of the Planning Commission would depend on the bUilding being converted. More special category tenants would be in the three privately- owned downtown high-rise buildings than in other buildings. Ms. Ehrman said Ms. Bascom called her and said she prefers the second option. Mr. Miller said the definition of IIdisabledll recommended by the Planning Commission includes emotional impairment and the definition seems to be an improvement of the definition of IIhandicappedll in the existing ordinance. Responding to a question, Ms. Brody said the new definition is broader than the old one and is not very controversial. She said the income categories recommended by the commission decrease the number of people who would become special category tenants. Ms. Schue said the recommendation to raise the age at which people automatically become special category tenants from 62 to 70 is reasonable because people who need special consideration would be classified as disabled. Mr. Miller reviewed the second option. He said he is concerned about the recommendation that the City should subsidize the services of a housing counselor. Ms. Johnson discussed the Planning Commission recommendation and said the commission recommended that the City recapture the cost of a housing co~nselor in the fees charged for the conversion permits. Ms. Schue said the developer should be charged the cost of the housing counselor. e Mr. Bennett said the community is not addressing the real issue. He said the existing ordinance indicates that a developer should assume the social responsibility of addressing the needs of elderly and disabled people and of people with low incomes. He said the public testimony addressed the needs of people who would be classified as special category tenants but the testimony did not indicate why a building owner should assume the responsibility of meeting the needs of special category tenants just because the owner wants to sell the property. He emphasized that the ordinance does not include single- family homes or duplexes in which disabled people, elderly people, and people with low incomes live. Mr. Bennett said the Condominium Conversion Ordinance indicates that the City will not pay for addressing the needs of special category tenants because the City does not want to take the responsibility. He said the owners of certain buildings will not be able to convert the buildings to condominiums if the community decides that a bUilding owner should have the responsibility for meeting the needs of special category tenants. In that case, he said the City should simply state that certain buildings cannot be converted to condominiums. Mr. Bennett said the issues he discussed have not been addressed by the community or the testimony. He said the staff recommendation does not address the issue or the Planning Commission discussion. He suggested the staff has listened to the public testimony. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1987 Page 8