Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-13 HCNB Agenda PktNCNB 001 Healthy Communities & Neighborhood Building 2"d Floor Conference Room —129 N 2nd St, Yakima, WA Thursday December 13, 2018. 1.0:00 a.m. City Council City Staff Councilmember Kay Funk Cliff Moore, City Manager Councilmember Jason White Ana Cortez -Steiner, Assistant City Manager Councilmember Kathy Coffey Joan Davenport, Community Development Director Councilmember Brad Hill (alternate) Sara Watkins, Senior Assistant City Attorney Rosalinda Ibarra, Administrative Assistant Agenda 1) Reports from Committees or Commissions Regarding Significant Issues a) Transit Citizen. Advisory Committee (Maxey) - https://yakimatransit.org/transit-advisory-grow/ b) Parks & Recreation Commission (Wilkinson/Funk) c) Henry Beauchamp Community Center - Quarterly (Adrianne Garner/Cortez) ■ Utility Expenses & Proposed Draft of 5 -Year Plan ■ Fourth Quarter Report — due in February 2019 d) Historic Preservation Commission (Calhoun/White) - http://www.yakimawa.gov/services/historic-preservation-commission/minutes/ e) Yakima Planning Commission (Calhoun/White) - https://edlfh042.citiesdigital.com/weblink/ f) Bike/Pedestrian Committee (Calhoun/White) g) Tree City Board (Calhoun/White) - http://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/yakima-tree-board/ h) Community Integration (Beehler) - https://edlfh042.citiesdigital.com/weblink/ i) Yakima Police Athletic League (YPAL) /WA Fruit Community Center (White) 2) Homeless Operational Model / Administration (Funk) a) Update on Yakima County Homeless Program Model (Moore) 3) Affordable/Senior/ Low Income Housing (Davenport) a) Discussion of Affordable Housing Report to Council from December 11' 4) Fair Avenue Traffic Calming Petition (White/Sehafer) 5) Community and Neighborhood Facilities (Schafer) 6) Other Business / Requests a) Approve Minutes of 11/08/2018 NCNB Meeting b) Future Items / Recap of Deliverables for Next NCNB Meeting (Davenport) c) Interpreter for Next Meeting (48 -hr advance notice) 7) Audience Participation a) Resident Interest in Junk Vehicle Regulations Next Meeting: January 10, 2019 The complete agenda packet is available online at: https://www.yakimawa.gov/council/city-council-committees/ NCNB 002 Attachments for Agenda Items: • I c: Utility Expenses & Proposed Draft of 5 -Year Plan • 3: Monthly Permit Statistics for November 2018 • 3a: Affordable Housing Report • 5: Community & Neighborhood Facilities • 6a: NCNB 11/08/2018 Draft Minutes • 7a: Junk Vehicle Regulations Category Maint. Salary & Fringe Building Repair & Maint. Maint. Supplies Utilities Communication Insurance Permits & Fees Maint. Travel Report Totals M In 01C of WASHINGTON H13CC Selected Line Items of Expenses December 31, 2017 Amount $9,174.10 $14,340.96 $4,324.71 $43,995.83 $2,228.93 $4,971.33 $870.10 $456.50 $80,362.46 HBCC Selected Line Its of Expenses Maint- Salary F. Fringe Building Repair & Maint. 18% Maint. Salary & Fringe Building Repair & Maint. Maint. Supplies Utilities Communication Insurance Permits & Fees Maint. Travel NCNB 003 Category Maint. Salary & Fringe Building Repair & Maint. Maint. Supplies Utilities Communication Insurance Permits & Fees Maint. Travel Report Totals M 01C of WASHINGTON HBCC Selected Line Items of Expenses December 7, 2018 Amount $6,477.78 $12,325.87 $2,106.42 $36,183.34 $2,170.44 $4,478.89 $870.10 $403.81 $65,016.65 HBCC Selected Line Items of Expenses Maint- Salary F. Fringp uilding Repair & Maint. 19% Maint. Salary & Fringe Building Repair & Maint. Maint. Supplies Utilities Communication Insurance Permits & Fees Maint. Travel NCNB 004 NCNB 005 OIC of WASHINGTON HBCC Selected Line Items of Expenses Year 2017 vs. YTD Dec 7, 2018 Amount % of Variance Category Variance Between Year 2017 YTD Dec 31, 2017 Dec 7, 2018 and YTD Nov 2018 Maint. Salary & Fringe $9,174.10 $6,477.78 ($2,696.32) -29% Building Repair & Maint. $14,340.96 $12,325.87 ($2,015M) -14% Maint. Supplies $4,324.71 $2,106.42 ($2,218.29) -51% Utilities $43,995.83 $36,183.34 ($7,81149) -18% Communication $2,228.93 $2,170.44 ($58.49) -3% Insurance $4,971.33 $4,478.89 ($492e44) -10% Permits & Fees $870.10 $870.10 $0.00 0% Maint. Travel 1 $456.50 1 $403.81 ($52,69)1 -12% lReport Totals 1 $80,362.46 1 $65,016.65 1 ($15,345.81)1 -19% 2013HBJCC Completed Projects 2013-2018 Replace two east steel exterior restroom d000. $1,282 2014 Add mag locks onthree exterior double doors. $3,335 2015 Replaced rooftop HVAC unit #7front lobby. $9,047 New heater inNorth exterior restroom. $364 2016 Add xvaU heater by Library front door. $1,115 Add extra outlets inkitchen area. $2,130 ADA door closer work. $1,075 Replaced HVAC unit #1Gym. $18,022 Erickson Structural Engineering Consulting. $1,280 New HEUCCsignage. $4,598 Remove large glass sliding doors replace with stud and sheetrock walls, new door paint and flooring $9,025 Replaced T'12 light fixtures with energy efficient LED light units in front lobby and both north south hallways uptothe gym. $10,085 2017 Add 4ton HVAC unit #1Ointhe Library. $12,488 2018 Replaced HVAC unit #GNorthwest offices. $13,087 Replaced T-12 light fixtures with energy efficient LED light units in the MLK, dining room and kitchen. $7,000 NCNB 007 HBJCC Projected Projects 2019-2023 RM Kitchen Repair - $3,000 LED light updates. $5,000 Roof repair. $12,000 HVAC replacement. $10,000 Total $30,000 2020 Roof repair. $12,000 LED light updates. $15,000 HVAC replacement. $18,000 BEST lock change out. $15,000 • r:.i ii# OM ADA upgrades. $42,000 HVAC replacement. $18,000 Total $60,000 MM ADA upgrades. $42,000 HVAC replacement. $18,000 Total $60,000 ADA upgrades. $42,000 HVAC replacement. $18,000 Total $60,000 11 - November 2O18Monthly Division Report w8aokup Created on12/6/2018 Permit Detail - November 1-30, 2018 Permit Detail - November 1-30, 2017 Current Month Year -to -Date Current Month Year -to -Date Types # Valuation Types # Valuation Types # Valuation Types # Valuation Single Family 8 $1,531,390.11 Single Family 130 $30,711,350.52 Single Family 6 $2,198,638.92 Single Family 80 $19,778,177.01 Duplex 8 $1,808,949.82 Duplex 35 $9,951,757.57 Duplex 4 $1,067,056.74 Duplex 12 $2,997,722.82 Residential Alt 35 $558,944.70 Residential Alt 606 $6,241,009.29 Residential Alt 431 $422,739.50 Residential Alt 5881 $5,619,341.64 Grading Grading 3 Grading Grading 21 New Com 3 $103,951.81 New Corn 61 $37,344,512.45 New Com 7 $9,469,340.21 New Com 58 $27,609,892.72 Com, Alt 21 $764,307.70 Corn Alt 212 $12,802,243.84 Com Alt 17 $1,313,165.28 Com Alt 221 $18,241,850.38 Garage (Residential) 2 $22,396.80 Garage (Residential) 24 $799,742.80 Garage (Residential) 3 $94,973.76 Garage (Residential) 31 $911,424.42 Moves Moves 0 Moves Moves Demo 4 Demo 44 Demo Demo 25 Pools Pools 12 $919,300.00 Pools 1 $170,000.00 Pools 8 $406,000.00 Mobile Home I Mobile Home 14 Mobile Home I Mobile Home 16 Retaining Wall. 2 $tO,198.00 Retaining Wall 4 $46,510.70,Retaining Wall Retaining Wall 3, $8,626.50, TOTAL 861 $6,600,592.14, TOTALI - 1160 $106,198,842.631 TOTALI 831 $14,802,578.651 TOTALI 10531 $75,904.783.411 11 - November 2O18Monthly Division Report w8aokup Created on12/6/2018 NCNB 009 City of Yakima Department of Community Development Affordable Housing White Paper City Council Meeting of December 11, 2018 Submitted by Joan Davenport, Director Summary Like most communities in Washington State, and indeed throughout the nation, the City of Yakima does not have an adequate supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of our community. Housing is defined as "affordable" if the costs do not exceed 30 percent of a family income. Families who spend more than 30 percent of their income are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. Families that spend 50 percent of their annual income on housing are considered severely cost burdened. Statewide, over 51 % of renters are cost -burdened and nearly 234,000 households are severely cost -burdened today. A family with one full-time worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford the local fair -market rent for a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States (2015 Washington State Housing Needs Assessment). In order to reduce the cost burden to families there is a gap (need) of 3,300 housing units affordable to those earning lower incomes in the City, according to the 2015 Washington State Housing Needs Assessment. This is the estimated measure of families (10% of families) that are currently struggling to cover housing related costs in our community. Yakima Housing Facts The City of Yakima currently has approximately 35,980 housing units for 94,190 persons. Average persons per housing unit is 2.66 persons. In 2014, 54 % of all housing units were owner -occupied and 46% rentals. Vacancy rates for existing housing units is very tight. Less than 2% of the rental units are vacant at any particular time. Single family homes on individual lots are the dominant housing type in Yakima. Findings • Vacancy Rates, especially for rentals, is very low. Available rentals in Yakima have been reported to drop from 7.8% to 1.7% vacancy rate between 2014 and 2016 (Runstad Center for Real Estate Research). • Home Ownership remains out of reach for many. Approximately 44% of our City families cannot afford to purchase home at the area Median Home price. Median single family home values (June 2016) in Yakima was $156,500 (compared to $275,600 in Wenatchee, $183,300 in Spokane and $216,300 in Tri -Cities). To afford the purchase of a median value home in Yakima, a family would need to make at least $38,500 annually ($3,200 monthly). • Many households are cost burdened. In the City of Yakima, 32% of renters are cost burdened and 49% of home owners are cost burdened (2012 study). • New construction of multi -family units has not kept up with demand. Between 2009 and September 2018 a total of 916 new single family homes were permitted for construction. In that same time period, only 281 housing units in duplex structures were built and 596 units of multifamily type buildings (more than 3 units per structure). Over this ten year period, a total of 1,793 housing units were issued building permits in the City of Yakima, or an average of 180 permits per year. • Smaller Household size. Over half the Yakima households are one or two people with no children. In 2015, 29 percent of Yakima's 33,074 households were single persons and 24 11 Page 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% NCNB 010 percent of the households were couples with no children. These population demographics may be indicators of a market demand for smaller homes, with smaller lots in a walkable setting. Townhouse type development and other moderate density to higher density settings may be responsive to this market. Housing choices for low to moderate income families in Yakima is severely limited. The Median Family Income in the City of Yakima is $43,089 (2016 ACS data) which is 27% lower than the Washington State Median Family Income. An estimated 22.5% of our residents live below the Federal Poverty level. The illustration below shows the distribution of household income by employees in the Yakima Urban Area. Yakima is shown in the orange color bar, the Nation as a whole is shown in gray. Median family income is noted by the black bar. Average Salary DATA USA:. New Residential Units Permitted Since 2009 Type/year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017" 2018 YTD Total Single -Family 119 91 66 64 73 78 113 107 90 115 916 Duplex 15 18 18 30 1 18 40 1 24 40 32 46 1 281 Multi -Family 3+ units 65 277 96 72 30 21 3 0 3 29 596 Total New Housing Units: 199 386 180 166 121 139 140 147 125 190 1,793 Total BLD Permits Issued 130 116 84 85 88 101 128 127 107 146 1,112 Existing City of Yakima Housing Inventory 2 1 P ao SF 22,303 61.98% Duplex 3,078 8.55% 3 -4 units 2,383 6.62% 5+ units 6,216 17.27% Mobile Homes in parks 2,003 5.57% Total housing units 35,983 100.00% 2 1 P ao NCNB 011 Strategies for the City of Yakima There are a number of issues the City of Yakima may want to consider in order to promote the construction of affordable housing. This report will summarize the following six issues: 1. Does the City have adequate supply of land zoned for housing, including alternatives to single family homes? What zoning districts encourage rental housing development? 2. Are there local regulatory barriers that inhibit affordable housing development? Are there regulatory incentives we can offer to encourage housing construction? 3. Are construction costs & permitting timelines in the Yakima Area consistent with other communities? Can they be improved? 4. Frontage Improvements and Utility Costs associated with new or infill development. 5. What programs has the State of Washington enabled that the city might want to take advantage of and what steps are necessary to implement the programs? 6. Should the city of Yakima consider a maintenance Code to assure that existing rental housing is preserved as well as descent and safe? What are the disadvantages to this approach? I. Supply of Land Zoned for Housing Based on population projections and guidelines issued by the Growth Management Act, the Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 identified the need to provide for 17,167 additional persons in the Yakima Urban Area by 2040 and 8,556 new jobs. The 17,167 new residents would need 6,602 new housing units over the 20+ year time or approximately 330 new housing starts every year. As stated in the Housing Facts section of this report, there is a significant need for more affordable housing. To the extent possible, a goal of the City of Yakima should be to promote approximately half of the new housing starts (3,300 housing units) as affordable to our moderate and lower income residents. The target of 330 new housing starts every year is significantly higher than the 180 average housing starts we have experienced in the last 10 years. CITY OF YAKIMA — 2015 inventory Total Acres Vacant Acres AS, Airport Support 815.91 1.0 B-1, Professional Business 382.00 48.0 B-2, Local Business 225.20 20.2 CBD, Central Business District 282.40 20.1 GC, General Commercial 1,349.71 442.4 LCC, Large Convenience Center 195.69 12.4 RD, Regional Development 548.31 232.2 SCC, Small Convenience Center 304.79 44.3 M-1, Light Industrial 1,953.14 851.1 M-2, Heavy Industrial 118.92 17.3 R-1, Single Family Residential 6,813.31 895.8 R-2, Two Family Residential 2,230.29 575.1 R-3, Multi -Family Residential 1,146.23 245.8 SR, Suburban Residential 1,565.26 194.6 Grand Total 17,934.12 3,331 Sq. Miles 28.02 4.84 While it is true we will need housing for all income groups, the most significant need is to encourage the construction of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income family rental housing, which has a very low vacancy rate (less than 2%).The 2015 Vacant Land Study, a background document for the Comprehensive Plan found the City had an adequate supply of vacant land which could accommodate 44,817 new housing units. However, a suitable tract of land for new housing has been identified as one of the main obstacles in getting new projects started. Housing can be built in most zoning districts, but land zoned R-3, Multi -family is limited. The City could benefit from more R-3 zoned land. A new process for minor rezones was adopted with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which generalized the Future Land Use category for Mixed Residential to include R-2 and R-3 zones. 31Fc NCNB 012 II. Regulatory Barriers or Incentives for Affordable Housing The City needs to encourage construction of all housing types but particularly affordable housing. Some steps to implement this goal have been taken while other options should be reviewed for future action. Already Implemented: ✓ The City Council modified the zoning code in 2018 to streamline construction of "Accessory Dwelling Units" (or ADU's). These are housing units which are built on lots that already have a house or other structure. ✓ The City amended the zoning code in 2017 to allow clustering of housing units around a common amenity in order to promote tiny home villages. ✓ With the exception of the Industrial zoning districts, new construction of housing is permitted in nearly all other zoning districts and locations. The process for multi -family construction requires notice to neighborhood residents within 300 feet in all districts except R-3 and projects with more than 20 units require review under State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in most situations. Neighborhood concerns ("Not in my Backyard — NIMBY") continues to be a challenge for some affordable housing projects. ✓ The City of Yakima has not imposed any Impact Fees (as allowed under RCW 82.02) on any construction projects. ✓ The City of Yakima offers a free Development Service Team project review. A follow up review is available for $100. If a developer takes advantage of these programs, the actual project review can be shortened because they have a better understanding of the Codes and requirements. ✓ Multi -family Tax Exemption program (MFTE). This tax exemption provides an incentive to construct multi -family housing in a targeted area of Yakima. This area has been defined as the Central Business district and several properties have been constructed using the exemption including the Lofts, the One Chestnut and the Nordstrom/Mills building. The program provides an exemption of property tax increases for up to 12 years based upon qualified improvements of the project and is governed by YMC 11.63.040. Should this area be expanded? ✓ The City of Yakima is an Entitlement Community for the HUD HOME program. Funds received under this program must be utilized to create new housing units. HOME funds have been used by the City of Yakima to support many partnerships and resulted in the construction of over 250 new housing units in the last ten years. Partners include Habitat for Humanity, Yakima Housing Authority, Next Step Housing, Catholic Charities and others. Future Options: o The City of Yakima could review smaller lot sizes as a tool to encourage more diversity and density of new homes. o The Central Washington State Homebuilders indicated the preference of many clients for more townhouse type homes. The Zoning Code could be reviewed specifically for techniques to encourage this type of development in Yakima, especially located on individual lots. o The City of Yakima could analyze the Municipal Code to determine if there are other options to encourage infill of vacant land and buildings with residential uses that have been successful in other communities. o Many of the existing buildings in the Central Business District were constructed with boarding house, hotels or other residential uses on the upper floors. These buildings often do not have fire suppression sprinkler systems or elevators. The City could examine code options related to these public safety measures to encourage redevelopment of these buildings with new residential units. 41 P a g NCNB 013 o The State legislature adopted amendments to RCW 19.27.060(2) which allows for local government to reduce the minimum dimensions of habitable spaces in single family housing units in an effort to promote smaller homes. o Promote accessory dwelling units in a wider range throughout the City. o Examine "Inclusionary" zoning that requires a percent of new units to be below market rate. III. Construction Costs and Permitting in the City of Yakima The City of Yakima was invited to participate in a 2017 survey of five markets in Eastern Washington to study housing costs. The five markets included Wenatchee/East Wenatchee, Yakima, Spokane, Ellensburg and Tri-Cities/Benton County. The 8 -page report was issued in March 2018 and indicates that construction of single family housing in the City of Yakima is competitive with the other four markets. In some measures, Yakima is one of the two least expensive markets for development costs. Areas where Yakima was most competitive was Median Value per square foot, total Sales Prices, total Cost of Framing materials and total permitting fees. One area in which the Yakima market was high was the Land Cost. One area where Yakima fell in the middle of the group was the length of time for development approvals. If the length of review time is perceived as excessive, this can be viewed as a potential disincentive for development. Some options to reduce processing time include: 1. The zoning code could be examined for land use types where the review level is changed to make more affordable housing type "permitted" Class 1 review projects, rather than requiring a class 2 or Class 3 review. Under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), review is necessary for any project that has more than 20 housing units. One option the City might consider is to make any SEPA exempt housing project a permitted land use. 2. In some Washington State communities, there is an option to pay an additional fee for expedited reviews. In other communities certain types of land uses are given an expedited review if the use is something the community wants to encourage. 3. As noted earlier in this paper some recent affordable housing developments in Yakima have experienced active neighborhood opposition, which has added up to a year to the review process. The NIMBY problem is a natural reaction to a project that might introduce diversity or increased housing density into an area. The City could review options to reduce the NIMBY effect, including community education and engagement. One solution may involve multiple smaller projects spread broadly in the City, rather than a project of 30 or more housing units. This could reduce the NIMBY opposition and streamline development of small scale projects. There are some grant opportunities for assistance in financing the construction of housing for low to moderate income families. One of the challenges remains operational costs for these developments. IV. Frontage Improvements and Necessary Public Utility Costs The cost of providing public utilities to new development has been noted as a concern for new projects in Yakima. Public water and sewer are enterprise funds, primarily operating on the rates paid by existing customers. Therefore, an adequate reserve fund for public financing of area wide improvements or line extensions does not exist in either of these programs. Some grant funds have been used in the past to assist in the extension of utilities into some areas. This funding is significantly constrained. Yakima Municipal Code Title 12 directs many of the policy issues related to these elements. To reduce frontage and utility costs, locations that already are served by public utilities and complete streets should be prioritized for affordable housing projects. 51 Page NCNB 014 Public water and fire flow — Public water is available from either the City of Yakima or Nob Hill Water systems, depending on location. No new wells in City Limits for drinking water are permitted, although there are still neighborhoods where public water is not currently available. The City recently extended public water to a mobile home park on Fruitvale Boulevard due to a failed water system. Public sewer — One of the most expensive items for new development is the common need to extend a public sewer line to the site. Currently, the City has approximately 20% of the neighborhoods and areas where no public sewer is available. The Yakima Health District does not recommend allowing any new septic systems inside the City of Yakima if public sewer can be made available. The City of Yakima does not have a robust Capital fund to finance the extensions of public sewer to all the regions of the City where no sewer lines exist or the capacity of the lines are not adequate. Developers cite the "to and through" policy requirement as adding expense burdens to projects, yet this remains one of the principle methods of equitably extending sewer lines to adjacent properties. Late comer agreements for sewer reimbursement are not popular, because the payback time is uncertain. In some of our older neighborhoods, the cost of sewer connections is a financial burden to families in existing homes that have old or failing septic systems. An alternative financing tool is the Local Improvement District (LID). In some neighborhoods, property owners may not be able to afford to participate in the LID or even afford the connection charges. Street frontage improvements - Construction of new streets, or improvement to existing streets to support a new development is a basic element of a project. There are many factors that impact the nature of the street improvement necessary to support a new development. The City has adopted the policy of "complete streets" that considers all users, including walking, biking and transit. This is most important in walk to school neighborhoods and safe routes locations. On street parking is often desired in a new development, but not required. Traffic calming is allowed on neighborhood streets, but not on busy arterial streets. The City policy is for sidewalks on both sides of the street. Infill lots may be exempt from some of the requirements to upgrade streets. Requirements for street frontage improvements must have a "nexus" to support the need for physical improvements. A traffic study is required for large projects to determine if "off-site" street improvements are necessary. The authority for the traffic study is most often the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). V. Washington State Legislative Affordable Housing Optional Programs Several programs have been enacted by the State to encourage affordable housing. • Affordable Housing Fund Sales and Use Tax increase. The State of Washington enacted an optional sales and use tax increase of one-tenth of 1 percent for Counties and Cities in 2015 (RCW 82.14.530) to be used exclusively for affordable housing projects and mental health programs. The cities of Ellensburg and Olympia have adopted programs to impose this sales tax increase. The city of Ellensburg anticipates it will raise approximately $450,000 to $500,000 per year from this program. The City of Olympia anticipates close to $2 million a year in revenue. The program requires a ballot measure for adoption. Both Ellensburg and Olympia conducted community workshops and studies to get support to pass these ballot measures. If the city council is interested in this program, a study session on implementation steps should be scheduled. • Disposal of Surplus Government Property at a Discount for Affordable Housing: Effective June 7, 2018, RCW 39.33.015(8)(x) enables state agencies and local governments to dispose of its surplus property at no or low cost to developers to construct affordable housing. There are requirements as to the affordability period and other restrictions as to the use of the property associated with the disposal. Municipalities must typically receive fair market value for surplus properties. Allowing 61 Page HCNB 015 the sale of surplus property at a discounted rate will open up more land for development of affordable housing. This program could streamline transactions of idle city owned land to housing agencies and developers who will build qualified affordable housing units. • Allowing for Smaller Residences: In HB 1085, the legislature amended the state building code and related planning statutes to allow local governments to reduce the minimum dimensions of habitable spaces in single-family residential units below the standards set forth in the state building code. This bill is intended to enable the development of smaller, more affordable homes, sometimes called tiny homes. RCW 19.27.060(2) now reads, in relevant part: The legislative body of a county or city... may adopt amendments [to its local regulations implementing the state building code] that eliminate any minimum gross floor area requirement for single-family detached dwellings or that provide a minimum gross floor area requirement below the minimum performance standards and objectives contained in the state building code. The City of Yakima has not adopted an amendment to the building code that allows this reduction in gross floor area requirements. • Exempting Certain Property Intended for Low -Income Housing from Property Taxes: ESSB 5143 exempts real property owned by a nonprofit entity from state and local property taxes when that land is being used for developing or redeveloping low-income residential housing. In particular, this law extends the exemption to community land trusts where the land remains in the ownership of the nonprofit but is leased to low-income households. There is no community land trust in Yakima. • Increased Funding Available for Affordable Housing and Homelessness: The legislature made permanent the $40 recording fee surcharge intended to raise funds for homelessness and affordable housing. It also increased the surcharge amount to $62. A portion of the surcharge is provided to counties to put toward their homeless housing program and a portion goes to the state to be deposited in the Home Security Fund Account. The funds must be used for specific purposes, and data collection requirements and metrics are incorporated to determine whether the funds are addressing the homelessness problem. The City of Yakima is considering a request to Yakima County that would reserve this increase in the filing fee for the capital project financing and operations of a permanent low -barrier homeless housing project and /or homeless shelter. VI. Minimum Housing Maintenance Code Preservation of the existing housing stock in the City of Yakima is critical to meeting the demand for affordable housing. The condition of housing (both rental and home ownership) is essential to quality life in the community. The City of Yakima, as an Entitlement Community, expends approximately 60% of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) resources in the repairs for safety and health items in the homes of senior citizens and disabled persons each year. This program has enabled hundreds of elderly families to "age in place", delay entry into an assisted living situation, or simply experience safety repairs that otherwise were not affordable. The City Council has strongly supported this program but it is limited by available funding. Much of the City of Yakima housing stock is old, with over 50% of the housing units constructed more than 40 years ago. There is a strong correlation between housing age and housing condition. The percentage of housing units that lack either a kitchen or plumbing varies by Census Tract between zero and 11.26 percent, with the high rate of no plumbing is found east of 1611 Avenue. Other condition issues have not been recently documented. The City of Yakima has adopted Municipal; Codes for Chronic Nuisance properties (YMC 11.45), Dangerous Buildings (YMC 11.46) and Apartment 7 1 P a g e NCNB 016 House/Hotel Safety Codes (YMC 11.13) but we have not adopted the optional Minimum Property Standards (MPS). The City of Yakima does not have a rental registry program, like Seattle does that requires inspection of rental units on a routine basis. At this time, the City cannot demand an inspection of a rental unit, which impairs the ability to write citations for unsanitary or potentially dangerous conditions. While there are many positive reasons to support a Minimum Maintenance Code or program, one significant negative affect would be the potential to displace low income persons from housing without any other housing resources to provide shelter. The City does not maintain a vacant residential building program at this time. The City Council has started a discussion of the goals and intended outcomes that may result from a vacant building program. If the City of Yakima adopts and enforces minimum maintenance standards, some housing units will be upgraded especially with public safety improvements. However, some housing units will likely be abandoned and some tenants may be displaced. City Council Options The Yakima City Council requested an overview report on the topic of "affordable housing". Staff has provided this briefing on the nature of this issue in our community. In order to begin to address the urgent housing needs in our community, the City of Yakima should focus on new ways to encourage construction of new housing units, and seek innovative methods to encourage housing which may be below market rates. The City of Yakima has many partners in this community that have broad expertise on these issues and may provide recommendations or more insight to the Council. 1. The City Council may choose to have a study session on the complex issues covered in this briefing paper. Community partners could be invited to attend and discuss their recommendations, concerns and future plans. 2. The Council may direct the Healthy Community and Neighborhood Building Committee (HCNB) to review this report and prioritize action steps for the full Council. 3. Some of the programs noted in this report require review by the Yakima Planning Commission for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Any change to utility policies and street improvements should involve a broad community review, including the City of Yakima Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. 5. Consideration of the adoption of the minimum maintenance code and a rental registry could involve review by a variety of stakeholders, including but not limited to, tenant rights organizations, health industry professionals and landlord organizations. HCNB 017 Memorandum December 6, 2018 To: Heathy Communities & Neighborhood Building Committee and City Manager, Cliff Moore From: Scott Schafer, Director of Public Work Re: Community & Neighborhood Facilities At the last Heathy Communities & Neighborhood Building Committee meeting, it was requested of staff to bring back an assessment of the City's Community & Neighborhood Facilities; specifically Lions and Franklin Pools and the two community centers, Washington Fruit Community Center and Henry Beauchamp Jr. Community Center. .IR7:�:1.T.11 A capital facility needs assessment was completed for Lions Pool in 2015 by the swimming pool consulting firm of Counsilman — Hunsaker. Counsilman — Hunsaker is nationally recognized for their expertise in aquatics facilities. Since the capital facility needs assessment, staff has already taken steps to address the recommended improvements to Lions Pool. The two most significant recommended improvements were to replace the pool filtration/sanitation system and the dehumidification equipment. In 2016, the engineering design work for the new filtration and sanitation system was completed by Perteet Inc. and Counsilman — Hunsaker. This project is ready to go out for bid when the time comes to actually replace the system. The dehumidification system was quoted at $80,000. Both of these capital projects will need to be budgeted when funds are available. Another recommended improvement was the refurbishment or replacement of the movable bulkhead. Staff had this originally evaluated in 2013 by Aquatic Specialty Services. The estimated cost at the time was $49,000. Franklin Pool A capital facility needs assessment for Franklin Pool is estimated at $25,000 to $30,000 according to Counsilman — Hunsaker. MLK Jr. Park Pool A Feasibility Study from Counsilman — Hunsaker for the proposed Martin Luther King Jr. Park Community Outdoor Swimming Pool is estimated at $45,000; identify three possible schematic designs for the community outdoor pool, providing estimated costs to construct each of the designs and estimated operational costs for the pool. The cost to conduct further studies on the pools is estimated at $120,000 when including the Feasibility Study on for the proposed Martin Luther King Jr. Park Community Outdoor Swimming Pool. NCNB 018 Washington Fruit Community Center The Washington Fruit Community Center (WFCC) currently houses YPAL, a nonprofit organization that brings kids and volunteers together; providing positive, worthwhile activities. The City of Yakima owns and maintains the building. The building consists of 10,472 sq. ft. and was constructed in 1975. It is in need of much renovation. The City entered into a five-year Agreement with Washington Fruit & Produce Company to renovate the building with Washington Fruit and the City each contributing $50,000 per year for five years. The total amount of $500,000 was to cover the cost of the first 5 Phases of renovation based on the YPAL Building Renovation Study completed by Wardell Architects. The 5 Phases were identified as: Phase 1 — Replacement of Windows and Siding; $80,000 Phase 2 — Renovate Classroom/Conference Room; $204,000 Phase 3 — New Restrooms; $84,000 Phase 4 — Remodel Offices/Reception/Cafe; $93,000* Phase 5 — Assembly Room/Hallways; $13,000 *City staff is looking for direction from the City Council prior to proceeding with Phase 4 to ensure that the future renovations reflect the desired programming and activities of City Council in order to be the most effective. Currently, $97,000 remains of the initial $500,000 to complete Phases 4 and 5. However, staff has identified an issue with the roof and HVAC system. In order to replace the roof, the 4 large HVAC units must be removed. The HVAC units are approximately 30 years old and have passed their expected life span. It is our recommendation that the roof be replacement along with the 4 large HVAC units as one project prior to proceeding to Phase 4 of the renovations. This capital project is estimated to be $409,000. The cost to conduct a further study is estimated at $30,000. Henry Beauchamp Jr. Communitv Center The Henry Beauchamp Jr. Community Center (HBCC) formerly known as the Southeast Community Center, is operated and management by Opportunities Industrialization Center of Washington (OIC) a nonprofit organization that provides essential services to meet the needs of the poor and disadvantaged specifically in the areas of health, education, employment, welfare and recreation. The City of Yakima owns and maintains the building. The building was constructed in 1972; consisting of 17,000 sq. ft. And like WFCC, HBCC also is in need of renovation. In 2016, Erickson Structural Consulting Engineering conducted an evaluation on the HBCC. The evaluation on the HBCC was to identify needed upgrades and improvements. The outcome of the evaluation indicated that the HBCC building was sound, but attention to mechanical and ventilation systems were needed. It was recommended that this be the priority of the City when funding was available. Over the past 5 years, staff has been addressing the priority of the ventilation systems through HVAC unit replacements. They have also conducted mechanical capital projects such as security doors and locks. In addition, converting existing lighting to LED lighting. This in turn provides the facility with better quality of lighting at a significant operational savings. NCNB 019 Future projects that have been identifed include: Replacement of the remaining six HVAC units Address roofing issues Remodel restrooms; ADA compliance The cost to conduct a further study is estimated at $40,000. 2 oma t . '.n` : m � ' Mi `u e'` H B 00 oto c� C ttee n o Healthy Communities & Neighborhood Building Committee (HCNB) 2nd Floor Conference Room November 8, 2018 Councilmember Kathy Coffey (chair) Councilmember Jason White Councilmember Brad Hill (alternate) Councilmember Kay Funk (absent) Cliff Moore Joan Davenport Sara Watkins Rosalinda Ibarra Ken Wilkinson Scott Schafer Joseph Calhoun Randy Beehler With a quorum present, acting Chair Coffey called the meeting to Adrianne Garner (HBCC) Frank Rowland (HBCC) Andy Ferguson (TYT) at apgrox. 10:01 a.m. Approval of Minutes — Hill motioned, seconded by White, to approve'the 9/13/2018 minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Reports from Departments/Commissions Transit Citizen Advisory Committee (TCA) — next meeting is November 14t':Iat Public Works beginning at 4pm. Parks & Recreation Commission (P&R) — Wilkinson, reported on the following wrap up activities: end of summer swimming at Franklin Pool, Randall Parr project, Ed Putnam Memorial at Fisher Park Golf Course. A brief discussion about schools who utit[ie Lions Pool for swim meets and practices occurred. The next Parks & Recreation Commission meeting is November 141H Henry Beauchamp Community Center (HBCC) — Adrianne Garner provided the HBCC 3rd Quarter Report. Highlights included: 50th Anniversary Celebration, ,T,E.M. programming from the Pacific Science Center, field trip to the Hanford Observatory, the Game On! program with Central Washington University, and the first graduation,class 6r'GEQ participants. Future activities include a Veteran's Luncheon and the annual holiday event, to which Garner extended an invitation. She mentioned several improuernert necessary at'the community center; such as, renovating the restrooms, updating the electrical panel and the HVAC system. She noted that her focus is on seeking additional funding,, to increase the capacity in order to support more children and families. In addition to HBCC reports, White motioned, seconded by Coffey, to include the Yakima Police Athletic League (YPAL) to subsequ t agendas underreports. Motion carried unanimously. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) " the HPC will be reviewing an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness fo ,an addition to a home in the Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood. Staff is working on developing contract to hire a consultant to perform the Fruit Row inventory. Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) —the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and rezone requests recently received approval. City Council will review the 2018 proposed text amendments at an upcoming public hearing on November 13th. The YPC will review their 2019 work plan. Bike & Pedestrian Committee (BPC) — a public service announcement on crosswalk safety through YPD is ongoing. Calhoun also noted that three terms will expire at the end of December. Tree City Board (TCB) — Calhoun reported that the tree city inventory has been completed. The TCB will have a reportrs dy in December. Community Integration Committee (CIC) — nothing noted. It was HCNB Committee consensus to include in the Council's future briefing meeting, the Community Integration Committee as a topic of discussion so Council can provide further guidance for that Committee. Homeless Operational Model/Administration — Watkins shared a diagram illustrating the process and structure of the homeless operational model. She summarized the three main elements of the Homeless Housing & Assistance Program Charter of Yakima County: the Coalition, the Executive Committee, and the Program Administrator. She also explained the following proposed draft resolutions intended to be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners which include: endorsing the Five -Year Plan to reduce homelessness in Yakima County; appointing the Yakima Homeless Coalition as the local homeless task force; and adopting the Yakima Homeless Housing Page 1 HCNB 021 and Assistance Program Charter. Following an extended discussion on current homeless matters, Davenport reported she is preparing a memo describing a step-by-step process on the progress for implementing a low -barrier shelter in the City. Coffey motioned, seconded by Hill, to request that the Council submit a letter to the BOCC requesting that the excess revenue of the increase to the 2163 Fund be put into a Capital Facility development fund. Motion carried unanimously. This will be included on Council business meeting on December 4th as a Committee report. In the packet was Larry Mattson's (YVCOG) response to Council's motion from September 11th, a letter from YVCOG, and Funk's response to which Moore stated they were included for informational purposes only; no further action necessary. Affordable/Senior/Low Income Housing — Davenport provided an update on the Affordable Housing Report. The following issues will be covered: land and locational issues; regulatory barriers and incentives; the cost of development such as permitting, frontage improvements, and utilities; dedicated revenues; and housing maintenance code issuee. This informational report will be provided to the City Council at their December 41h business /meeting. Community Crosswalks Feasibility Report — Schafer described the City of Seattle's neighborhood crosswalk program. He reiterated the challenges the City faces in incorporating such, a program in Yakima such as funding, cost maintenance, and]a' ck of personnel resources. The traffic calming petition process was discussed. Staff will research whether a petition, for Fair Ave was submitted. City Council Committee Procedures — Moore shared the latest City Council Committee process. Future Items — A brief discussion about) deral legislative priorities lobbying efforts ensued, in particular about funding projects using the marijuana revenues. White motioned to move the legislative priorities for recreational marijuana revenues to full Coun il: Motion failed for lack of a second. It was Committee consensus to include this di cession to an upcoming Council briefing. White expressed the community centers. H on the status of exist HCNB agenda as bor :dPUl L./CIIVGIdUICJ— • Add YP'ALto HCNB • HCNB Committee l )nue to create a Ude in an upcon o,, Council dire, o Mariivana rE • Include Oornmunity • Staff to research a i Audience Partici Beauchamp Commun arse of securing funds to modernize the two existing pools and ,sted further discussion on this matter. Staff will report back to HCNB lities and projected improvements. It will be listed on the December and Neighborhood Facilities. ionthly_ agenda under Reports sport to'Council: Draft letter to BOCC regarding 2163 Fund excess unci) briefing meeting two items for discussion: r Community Integration Committee dedicated to specific youth development programs ?ighborhood Facilities to the December HCNB agenda calming petition for Fair Avenue k Rowland expressed appreciation for the City's efforts on the Henry Adjourn — White motioned, seconded by Hill, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. This meeting adjourned at approximately 11:13 a.m. Approved by: Date Approved: Prepared by: Rosalinda Ibarra, Community Development Administrative Assistant. This meeting was recorded by Y -PAC. Page 2 HCNB 022 IOWhilte SalmonglAtA�Zoning��Ordititih'r,4�� M MMT A. Outside storage of wrecked, dismantled or partially dismantled, inoperable, or unlicensed (vehicle licensing plates and current tabs) a -Fid u-rh[sured vehicles. F �16 IVII C� Parking or storage of industrial or agriculture vehicles and equipment on lots. D, Outside collections of automobile, truck or other motor vehicle parts or paints, fuels, and lubricants. E. Outside accumulations of garbage, trash, household goods, yard trimmings, or other materials which create a public nuisance or fire hazard. F. On premise storage of flammable, toxic, corrosive, or explosivel chemicals, gases, or materials other than reasonable amounts normal household paints, cleaners, solvents, fuels. G. Possession of non -household animals including, but not limited to, horses, cows, sheep, goats, ponies, swine, fowl, and poisonous insects, reptiles kept unless approved by the city. NCNB 023 W-Vulmm MEW I I L" UW� t6i L4T fW -IftS7111f I --L4T fW lftS7111f 1, L4TfWf'JftS7J!Jf1, ; --L4T fW f'IftS7111f 1, remove a junk vehicle from his or her own property, or to lodge a complaint about a vehicle elsewhere in the neighborhood. Below are answers to common questions about Thurston County's junk vehicle program. (Junk vehicles are also referred to as "hulk" vehicles.) What is a Junk Vehicle? use. Damage to the frame. More than one missing or shattered window or windshield. More than one inoperable or missing headlight or taillight. More than one flat tire. • A rMissing or inoperable engine or transmission. • A missing wheel, tire, body panel, door, hood or other obvious body part, not including a bumper. • A missing license plate. • A license plate that has been invalid for more than 60 days. oi A missing driver -side mirror. * Evidence that the vehicle has not been moved in at least 60 A 'Me definition does not include special-interest vehicles, vehicles undergoing active restoratio farm machinery, or prominently displayed ornamental machinery. I There's aunk vehicle on my neighbor's property. Is there anything Thurston County can do about it? Enforcement of the county junk vehicle law is done on a complaint basis. After a complaint is in es -i as "junk/hulk." The property owner is notified and required to remove the vehicle. If the property owner fails to remove the vehicle(s), a civil infraction may be issued. lo report ajunk vehicle in unincorporated lliurston County (i.e., not in a city), Omit an Investigation Request Form. B. Ownership and vehicle registration status have no bearing on the determination of a vehicle as a public nuisance vehicle. C. Upon being notified by the town of Waterville of the presence of a public nuisance vehicle, a landowner of the premises or property on which the public nuisance vehicle i located shall, within 45 days, remove the public nuisance, provide the town of Watervill with written proof that the public nuisance was removed in full compliance with all applicable laws, codes, and ordinances, and shall prevent a reoccurrence of the public nuisance. D. Failure to remove the public nuisance within 45 days constitutes a Class I civil infraction. Violations shall be assessed in accordance with the Waterville Municipal Code. E. A public nuisance vehicle may be abated by any lawful means. Abatement costs sh be charged against the last registered owner of the public nuisance vehicle and/or the person responsible for the violation. This may include the landowner of the premises o property but also any tenant or occupant, regardless of whether the tenancy or occupancy is legal or not. (Ord. 768 § 4, 2016; Ord. 666 § 2, 2006). NCNB 025 Info Items / Council Meeting i 11 -30-18 ait�,i ".-Mcge–Divers-e IN # lernelit Ty colic 111111111liewli 1*1 al I eametit Miami lernowai at siltunwethuies to MEMO LFIM, lolls• r conduct associated with inoperable/junk vehicles; enhance the visual qualities of Yakima; conserve and stabilize property values; reduce public health, safety and environmental risks associated with inoperable and junk vehicles; prevent overloading of limited land resources; provide safety from fire, and provide the essential open space for light and air. Shoving inoperable vehicles off a public street on to private property mitigates the RCW violation but it does not remove the vehicles from public view. It does, however, provide a different view of the eyesores. DEFINITIONS JAII definitions found require "Inoperable motorized vehicle" means any car, truck, van, recreational vehicle, motorcycle, snowmobile or other vehicle typically powered by an engine, excepting watercraft, that has been in a stationary position for more than 14 calendar days, is apparently inoperable or requires repairs in order to be operable, or is unable to move a distance of 20 feet under its own power on a flat surface. "Inoperable motorized vehicle" may include vehicles that do not meet the definition of "junk vehicle." – Richland, WA "Inoperative vehicle" means a vehicle that cannot be operated or towed behind a vehicle on a public street due to the condition of the vehicle or the status of the ownership, registration, or license of the vehicle.—Brier, WA (East of Mountlake Terrace) Extreme Case Scenario– Painted vehicle hulks scattered throughout the City as works of art. In San Marcos, Texas - The case went before the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals. In an opinion Chief Judge Edith Jones said "the US Supreme Court had never directly ruled on the extent of First Amendment protection for "visual non -speech objects or artworks." "Irrespective of the intentions of its creatorsJones said "The [Olds 881 car -planter is a utilitarian device, an advertisement, and ultimately a junked vehicle." The RV stored for many years in full public view off Summitview (4701) is in District 6 / Brad Hill.; Contacted by email / Brooke Goosman - Legal Department She is assigned to update Title 9. 1 offered to help. No response to date. J, 1:10 191 IT, 14 ki I &�� • Title 6, Public Safety and Morals – Chapter 6.56, Nuisances Add Public Nuisance Vehicles and Removal Procedures using Hearing Examiner, • Title 9, Traffic -- Chapter 9.47, Impounds Add Inoperable Vehicles and Removal Procedures using Hearing Examiner • Title 11, Buildings – Chapter 11 -04, Building Code Add International Property Maintenance Code, Section 302, Exterior Property Areas, 302.8 Motor Vehicles as is, or with definitions and removal procedures using Hearinw Examiner. Appellate Court of Eastern Washington upheld IPMC and removal action. • Title 15, YUA Zoning Ordinance – Chapter 15.04 Permitted Land Uses Add Specified Prohibited Uses List in R-1 District. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 * 4 4 4 IIS the se0onOO* Almost I Community Dinner 4 Friday, ecer i 2018 II0i8. 4:30pm1p Submitted: IV Henry Beauchamp Community 1211 South ..Yakima,+ 1 The Holiday Dinner is FRIEEto all. Every child 12 and under- gift, goody bag, and a photo with Santa. Call 575-6114 for more information. This community activity is sponsored by The Henry Beauchamp Community Center's Special Events Committee and its Community Partners. OIC of • Beauchamp Community Center is an equalopportunity employerand provider of r • r • r . .r r• •s . • r r .r' "Yakima School District has neither reviewed nor approved the program, personnel, activities, or organizations announced in the flyer. Permission to distribute this flyer should not be considered a recommendation or endorsement by the Yakima School District. Yakima School District shall be held harmless from any causes of action filed in any court or administrative tribunal arising out of the distribution of these materials, including all cost, attorney's fees, judgements, or awards." Printed By a•a 4 4 * 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 '...Casil Es L4 Tov� M - WITTVi Fotos Cbn Santa Claus Viernes diciembre del 8 Desde i 11 r En el Henry Beauchamp Community Center (Centro del Sureste de la Comunidad de Yakima) 1211 South y festival_ , p.ra tiiis los invitados. Adernds,.d• nifio afios i" "i.i f recibird un regalo gratis,.i bolsa d- cosas buenas y una f6to con Santa ► .=Llarne575-6114. La Cena Festival es un regalo especial de parte del Comite de Actividades Especiales del "Centro del Sureste de ]a Comunidad de Yakima y de nuestros socios dentro de la comunidad. OIC de Washington / Henry Beauchamp Comunidad Yakima es un empleador de igualdad de oportunidades y el proveedor de servicios de empleo y servicios de entrenamiento. Ayudas y servicios auxiliares estan disponibles a pedido de personas con discapacidad. "El Distrito Escolar de Yakima, no ha revisado ni aprobado el programa, personal, actividades u organizaciones anunciadas en el volante. Permiso para distribuir este volante, no debe considerarse una recomendaci®n o aprobaci®n per el Distrito Escolar de Yakima. El Distrito Escolar de Yakima se deslinda de cualquier causa de acci®n legal, presentada en cualquier corte o tribunal administrativo, derivadas de ]a distribuci®n de estos materiales; incluyendo todos los costos, honorarios de abogados, juicios o premios." Printed By '� Healthy Communities I t Neighborhood Building Committee 10 * Meeting i change is in supportof i desire to nave a clean and • • providing "tools" to remove frompublic view derelict vehicles stored 24/7 on private property. Hopefully; as quickly as a merchant's shopping • `: removed from public view. I am asking for f' • • it of effective regulationsgive the citizens of Yakima a cleaner and more livable City. My recommendation is to adoptInternational( • # Code mirrors the Community's i • Council's desireti have a clean and livable City. The IPMC can regulate everything from•I• .• . vehicles, to fences,to how vegetation grow. * IPMC appeals are hY I `• by the HearingExaminer. * decision by the Hearing Examiner is the final decision I any violation matter appealed to Ycourt with jurisdiction. CourtIPMC regulations are not "new"; they have existed for years. They have been adopted by local governments across our State and the nation. Kittitas County, Yakima County, Union Gap, and Selah to name just a few have adopted the IPMC. It is a State Appellate '• code. * Title • Public Safety and Morals -- Chapter• • , Ruisances *i• Public Nuisance Vehicles and Removal Proceduresti Hearing * Title 9, Traffic -- Chapter 9.47, Impounds Add • i- .ir and Removal Procedures# Hearing Examiner Title 11, Buildings — Cha' ' Building Code Add i ! r f i i' Code, SectionExterior Property i; Motoror definitions r removal procedures using Hearinr Examiner. Appellate Court of Eastern Washington upheld IPMC and removal acbon. Title 15, YUA Zoning Ordinance — Chapter 15.04 Permitted Land Uses Add i 1- "i ProhibitedUsesDistrict. (i does 1 display ' and/or 1t equipped with all parts that are required to legally and safely operate on public and/or 1 be 1 / Immand) under its own power or notdesigned for use on public Inoperative 1 be parked, J or maintained in a residentialdistrict,1 enclosed structure that was constructed permit.with a The trigger is no current,tag. Specified time periods requiref and are subject1 dispute. f; it simple1 easy to enforce. Notag; the vehicle is immediatelyIf 1 from the property or put into a permitted enclosed At 1 • 1 current tag requires that a vehicle must 1' immediately removed from a public or is subjectI-impound