Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2020 Staff: Committee Members: Jacqui Kitchen, Assistant City Manager Councilmember, Bruce Freeman – Chair Councilmember, Bob Smith Councilmember, Willie Rivera Regular Meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council – City of Bakersfield Tuesday, November 17, 2020 12:00 p.m. City Hall North – Conference Room A 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA 93301 A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Committee Discussion and Recommendations Regarding Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance – Boyle/Kitchen B. Committee Discussion and Recommendations Regarding Vacant Building Ordinance – Boyle/Kitchen 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT SPECIAL NOTICE Public Participation and Accessibility November 17, 2020 Planning and Development Committee On March 18, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20, which includes a waiver of Brown Act provisions requiring physical presence of the Committee members or the public in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Planning and Development Committee Regular Meeting November 17, 2020 Agenda Page 2 Based on guidance from the California Governor’s Office and Department of Public Health, as well as the County Health Officer, in order to minimize the potential spread of the COVID-19 virus, the City of Bakersfield hereby provides notice that as a result of the declared federal, state, and local health emergencies, and in light of the Governor’s order, the following adjustments have been made: 1. The meeting scheduled for November 17, 2020, at 12:00 p.m. will have limited public access. 2. Consistent with the Executive Order, Committee members may elect to attend the meeting telephonically and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. 3. The public may participate in each meeting and address the Committee as follows: • If you wish to comment on a specific agenda item, submit your comment via email to the City Clerk at City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, the day before the Committee meeting. Please clearly indicate which agenda item number your comment pertains to. • If you wish to make a general public comment not related to a specific agenda item, submit your comment via email to the City Clerk at City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, the day before the Committee meeting. • Alternatively, you may comment by calling (661) 326-3100 and leaving a voicemail of no more than 3 minutes no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, the day before the Committee meeting. Your message must clearly indicate whether your comment relates to a particular agenda item, or is a general public comment. If your comment meets the foregoing criteria, it will be transcribed as accurately as possible. • If you wish to make a comment on a specific agenda item as it is being heard, please email your written comment to the City Clerk at City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us. All comments received during the meeting may not be read, but will be provided to the Committee and included as part of the permanent public record of the meeting. Committee Members Staff: Jacqui Kitchen Councilmember, Bruce Freeman Chair Assistant City Manager Councilmember, Willie Rivera Councilmember, Bob Smith REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 22, 2020 12:00 p.m. City Hall North – Conference Room A 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Councilmember, Bruce Freeman, Chair Councilmember, Bob Smith Councilmember, Willie Rivera City Staff: Christian Clegg, City Manager Anthony Valdez, Administrative Analyst Ginny Gennaro, City Attorney Chris Boyle, Development Services Director Phil Burns, Building Director Paul Johnson, Planning Director Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager Kris Budak, Water Resources Director Sam Blue, Civil Engineer Jim Schoreter, Civil Engineer Additional Attendees: Members of the Public 2. ADOPT JUNE 30, 2020 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT The report was adopted as submitted. /S/ Jacqui Kitchen DRAFT S:\Council Committees\2020\Planning and Development\09_September JK:mc 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS There were no public comments. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding the Cost Analysis of Sumps – Chianello/Fidler Water Resources Manager Chianello provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the memorandum included in the agenda packet regarding proposed policy to share maintenance costs for storm drainage sumps to establish a master planned mixed-use communities maintenance district to maintain regional sumps in response to the referral made by Councilmember Freeman at the April 8, 2020 City Council meeting. Committee member Smith inquired about the current funding sources used to maintain sumps. Water Resources Manager Chianello stated funding comes from maintenance districts. Currently, there is not enough revenue to cover the costs of maintaining all sumps. Committee member Smith inquired about the installation of mechanical devices in private sumps as they are very costly. Public Works Director Fidler stated the mechanical devices are stormceptors. The devices separate stormwaters from hazardous materials such as trash, oils and other debris and prevents them from entering recharged groundwater. They protect the downstream water system. Committee member Smith made a motion to establish consolidated maintenance districts to assess annual maintenance costs for equitable cost sharing among multiple property owners. The motion was unanimously approved. B. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Downtown Parking - Boyle Committee member Smith announced he would abstain on this item due to a potential conflict of interest, Development Services Director Boyle provided a PowerPoint a presentation summarizing the memorandum included in the agenda packet regarding the parking reduction for residential uses within the central district and other mixed-used areas in response to the referral made by Councilmember Gonzales at the June 10, 2020 City Council meeting. Austin Smith with Sage Equities provided correspondence and made comment regarding parking requirements for downtown housing. Committee member Rivera made a motion to revise the Municipal Code Section 17.58.120 specific to parking in the central district and old town kern areas including the recognition of tandem parking and provide additional research regarding up to 50 percentage reductions for residential parking incentives prior to presenting the ordinance to the Planning Commission. The motion was unanimously approved. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:13 p.m. DRAFT MEMORANDUM November 17, 2020 TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Bruce Freeman, Chair Bob Smith Willie Rivera FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Adoption of a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance This report is in response to a referral from Councilman Rivera at the September 9, 2020 City Council directing staff to prepare a reasonable accommodation ordinance in order to be compliant with state law. The referral request was made at the direction of the City Attorney. BACKGROUND State law SB520 (2001) requires that municipalities adopt a reasonable accommodation ordinance. The bill specifically require[s] the housing element of a general plan to promote housing opportunities for persons with disabilities and to identify adequate sites for housing for persons with disabilities, as specified, thereby creating a state-mandated local program by imposing new duties on local agencies. SB520 (the Bill) amended Sections 65008 and 65583 of the Government Code, relating to housing. Section 65008 prohibits cities from discriminating against persons with disabilities (among other protected classes) in residential housing development or emergency shelters. Section 65583(c)(3) requires the City’s housing element to address and, when appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. None of the City’s zone districts include any restriction against individuals with disabilities. The proposed ordinance creates a zoning procedure for handling requests for reasonable accommodation made pursuant to the fair housing laws, satisfying the Bill’s requirement for a program that “shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.” The City’s 2015 – 2023 Housing Element states that the City will adopt an ordinance establishing a procedure or policy for reasonable accommodation as required by state law. ANALYSIS The need for a reasonable accommodation ordinance is identified on page 15 of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, which states that it will ensure that the City complies with the provisions of SB520, by regularly monitoring the city’s ordinances, codes, policies, and procedures to ensure that they comply with “reasonable accommodation” provisions, and that the City will adopt an ordinance establishing a procedure or policy for reasonable accommodation, as required by state law. Page 115 set a deadline of December 2016 to accomplish that goal. The housing element must take steps to remove constraints and provide “reasonable accommodations” for housing for persons with disabilities. A reasonable accommodation ordinance creates a zoning procedure for handling requests for reasonable accommodation made pursuant to the fair housing laws, and has been used by cities and encouraged by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to meet the fair housing mandates since 2001. It is important to understand that a reasonable accommodation ordinance does not override or negate other components of the City’s ordinance, including the various components of the zoning ordinance specific to the establishment of housing of various types within the various zone districts of the City. The proposed ordinance simply establishes a formal procedure for a person with a disability to request a reasonable accommodation, as required by federal and state law. Every comparable city already has adopted ordinance in place. Adding the ordinance would help protect the city from a potential housing element lawsuit that alleges that the city is not implementing its housing element and violating fair housing laws, including the federal requirement for the city to affirmatively further fair housing in its laws and programs. Although there is no pending litigation against the City on this topic, HCD has certain enforcement powers and could de-certify the City’s housing element if the City were found not in substantial compliance with the provisions specifically required by Housing Element Law. With the City beginning an update to its General Plan, including the Housing Element, an effort to begin to address compliance with housing law is important to achieve (even incrementally) moving forward. RECOMMENDATION Forward the attached ordinance to Planning Commission for consideration. NEXT STEPS Provide staff direction on adding Chapter 17.73 – Reasonable Accommodation to the City’s ordinance. The Committee may: 1. Option #1 – Provide specific direction for the alteration of the draft ordinance, to be returned to the Committee for further dialogue and deliberation. 2. Option #2 – Provide specific direction for the alteration of the draft ordinance in advance of scheduling the item for public hearing with the Planning Commission. 3. Option #3 – Direct staff to schedule the item for public hearing with the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinance Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. ______________ ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.73 TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE, PROVIDING A PROCEDURE FOR REASONABLE ACCOMODATION IN THE CITY’S LAND USE AND ZONING REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS AND FAIR HOUSING LAWS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 17.73 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: Chapter 17.73 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 17.73.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a procedure for individuals with disabilities to request reasonable accommodation in seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (hereafter “Acts”) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies, and procedures. 17.73.020 Applicability. A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability or their representative, when the application of a requirement of this zoning code or other City requirement, policy, or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. For the purposes of this chapter, a “person with a disability” is any person who has a physical or mental impairment that limits or substantially limits one or more major life activities, anyone who is regarded as having such impairment or anyone who has a record of such impairment. This chapter is intended to apply to those persons who are defined as disabled under the Acts. B. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards, and practices for the siting, development, and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of their choice. Page 2 of 5 C. A reasonable accommodation is granted only to the household that needs the accommodation and does not apply to successors in interest to the site. D. A reasonable accommodation may be granted in compliance with this Chapter without the need for the approval of a variance. 17.73.030 Procedures. A. A request for reasonable accommodation shall be submitted on an application form provided by the Development Services Department or in the form of a letter to the Development Services Director, and shall contain the following information: 1. The applicant’s name, address, and telephone number; 2. Address of the property for which the request is being made; 3. The current use of the property; 4. The basis for the claim that the individual is considered disabled under the Acts, including verification of such claim; 5. The zoning code provision, regulation, or policy from which reasonable accommodation is being requested; and 6. Why the reasonable accommodation is necessary to make the specific property accessible to the individual. B. If the project for which the request for reasonable accommodation is being made requires some other discretionary approval (including use permit, design review, etc.), then the applicant shall file the information required by subsection A of this section for concurrent review with the application for discretionary approval. C. A request for reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the Development Services Director. If no approval is sought other than the request for reasonable accommodation, the Director shall make a written determination within 45 days of the application being deemed complete and either grant, grant with modifications, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation. D. A request for reasonable accommodation submitted for concurrent review with another discretionary land use application shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The written determination on whether to grant or deny the request for reasonable accommodation shall be made by the Planning Commission in compliance with the applicable review procedure for the discretionary review. Page 3 of 5 17.73.040 Approval Findings. A. The written decision to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation will be consistent with the Acts and shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. Whether the housing in the request will be used by a person with a disability under the Acts; 2. Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a person with a disability under the Acts; 3. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial, administrative or enforcement burden on the City; 4. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning; 5. Potential impact on surrounding uses; 6. Physical attributes of the property and structures; and 7. Other reasonable accommodations that may provide an equivalent level of benefit. 17.73.050 Conditions of Approval A. In granting a request for reasonable accommodation, the Development Services Director or his/her designee, or the Planning Commission as the case might be, may impose any conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable accommodation would comply with the findings. The conditions shall also state whether the accommodation granted shall be removed in the event that the person for whom the accommodation was requested no longer resides on the site. 17.73.060 Appeals. A. Any person dissatisfied with any action of the Development Services Director pertaining to this Chapter may appeal to the Planning Commission within 10 days after written notice of the Director’s decision is sent to the applicant by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk and shall specify the reasons for the appeal and the grounds asserted for relief. Page 4 of 5 B. Any person dissatisfied with any action of the Planning Commission pertaining to this Chapter may appeal to the City Council within 10 days after the rendition of the decision of the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk and shall specify the reasons for the appeal and the grounds asserted for relief. If any request for a reasonable accommodation is disapproved by the Planning Commission and no appeal is filed, such action by the Planning Commission shall be final and conclusive. C. The City Council shall, by resolution, adopt and from time to time amend a fee for the filing of appeals. Such fee shall be for the sole purpose of defraying costs incurred for the administration of appeals. The fee for an appeal shall be paid at the time of and with the filing of an appeal. No appeal shall be deemed valid unless the prescribed fee has been paid. D. If an appeal is not filed within the time or in the manner prescribed in this section, the right to review of the action against which the appeal is made shall be deemed to have been waived. E. After filing an appeal, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission should be granted or denied. Written notice of the time, date and place of hearing shall be given to the appellant, and to any other persons who have filed a written request for notice. Such notices shall be mailed to the appellant and to any other persons who have filed a written request for notice at least ten days prior to the hearing. Any hearing may be continued from time to time. A decision of the City Council shall be final and conclusive. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. ---------o0o---------- Page 5 of 5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ___________________________ by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: RIVERA, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, FREEMAN, SULLIVAN, PARLIER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ _ __________________________________________ JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: ____________________________ KAREN GOH Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney By: _____________________________ JOSHUA H. RUDNICK Deputy City Attorney JHR/vlg S:\COUNCIL\Ords\20-21\17.73 Reasonable Accomodation.Rdln2.docx   MEMORANDUM          November 17, 2020    TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE     Bruce Freeman, Chair     Bob Smith     Willie Rivera       FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director    SUBJECT: Toolkit to address Vacant Buildings & Chronic Nuisance Properties       This item is in response to a referral initially made by Councilmember Gonzales at the February 19, 2020  Council meeting. Councilmember Gonzales specifically requested that the Committee review options to  address vacant buildings throughout the City; and to review Sacramento’s Municipal Code regarding  vacant buildings.  This item was discussed by the Planning and Development Committee on May 21, 2020,  (see below) and the Committee directed Staff to perform additional research specific to effective  strategies to address vacant buildings.  At the July 15, 2020 City Council meeting, Councilmember Gonzales  requested that staff consider developing a chronic nuisance property toolkit which could include a lien  forgiveness program and a purchase and sell back program.     Background    When vacant buildings are not effectively maintained, they can result in blight and a public nuisance. As  requested by Council, on May 21st Staff presented a report (Attachment 1) to the Planning and  Development Committee that described the purpose and intent of a “Vacant Building Ordinance,” the  nature of the City’s current ordinance, and potential ordinance amendments that might provide additional  effectiveness within existing law in the City’s efforts toward resolving the issue.      In performing additional research per the direction of the Committee, Staff prepared additional memos  that sought to more fully investigate the vacant building problem and potential solutions. The first memo  (Attachment 2), prepared on August 11th, examined the nature of the issue here in Bakersfield.  The  second memo (Attachment 3), prepared on September 16th, explored strategies to solving and resolving  the issue. What follows is a summary of those three research efforts.    Staff Analysis    Ordinance‐Based Solutions    The May 21th report to the Committee fully examines ordinance‐based solutions. The report describes  current ordinance tools and how they are utilized by Staff.  The report advises that the City has processes  and tools in place to address unmaintained vacant buildings that become a public nuisance.  In comparison  to ordinances like that of Sacramento, the main difference/distinction is that Sacramento’s ordinance  requires that vacant buildings require registration, monthly inspections and tiered administrative  fees/fines in lieu of the City’s nuisance abatement process.  Sacramento uses a separate vacant building  ordinance (separate from its nuisance abatement process) to address vacant building nuisances.  A table  examining comparable city ordinances is included in this analysis (See Attachment 1).       In essence, the Sacramento approach results in a separate tier of enforcement that collects administrative  fees and, if not adhered to, results in separate fines.  This does not necessarily result in a resolution to the  problem though – only additional fees and fines.  Many vacant building ordinances were crafted as a result  of the real estate collapse that occurred in conjunction with the Great Recession.  At that time, many  homes were abandoned and foreclosed upon by banks.  In response to this wide spread condition, cities  adopted new vacant building ordinances to protect the integrity of neighborhoods hard hit by  foreclosures.  The new vacant building ordinances were initially successful because many of the properties  were owned by banks that were responsive to the Cities; and because the banks had an interest in  maintaining/repairing the foreclosed properties so they could eventually sell them.      It is Staff’s opinion that, in today’s local market, a vacant building ordinance may not be as effective for  addressing vacant and substandard buildings because of a different ownership population.  Whereas  banks were responsible to the requirements of owning vast numbers of foreclosures, current Bakersfield  owners of vacant and substandard structures have not responded accordingly.  The properties in question  have been non‐responsive and in many cases have already been significantly penalized with fines, largely  because the property owners are not responsive to the threat of monetary penalty enforcement  techniques.  Although the City does not have an adopted vacant building ordinance, the available public  nuisance tools are very similar, using similar strategies to bring about compliance.  One could say that the  City already has tried to resolve the matter in this fashion and, for a select group of property owners and  their corresponding properties, the approach has not worked.    Current Characteristics of Vacant Properties     Thus, Staff performed additional research specific to identifying alternative approaches that could be  effective in resolving Bakersfield vacant and substandard housing problems.  A memo dated August 11th  (Attachment 2), first explored the characteristics of the problem at hand, noting that vacant buildings and  properties follow varying pathways toward initial citation to, ultimately potential demolition. Currently,  Code Enforcement (CE) has approximately 336 individual addresses with open correction notices for  substandard properties.  Open cases date as far back as 2011.  77 of the 336 posted substandard cases  (23%) were initiated in 2020.  Reasons for citation include lack of required utilities, illegal construction,  property maintenance issues, housing violations, encampments and assorted building and construction  concerns.  Not included in the prior list of posted substandard properties is the abatement of dangerous  building.  These buildings either have been or are nearing demolition.  Since 2015, 66 structures have  been demolished in the city. Eight more are currently scheduled for demolition.  From this research, a list  of chronic properties, both for residential and commercial addresses, was produced.  Worst case examples  include as many as 38 subsequent open cases by CE since a residential property was originally posted  substandard (2825 California Avenue), and 18 subsequent open cases by CE since a commercial property  was originally posted substandard (3207 Union Avenue).    Cost Considerations. A Vacant Building Ordinance utilizes administrative fines to motivate compliance and  tiered up fines where properties do not comply.  In order to implement an ordinance like Sacramento’s  to address vacant buildings throughout the City, Code Enforcement would require additional personnel  for intake, inspections, and to process these properties.  Staff would need to evaluate resource needs  depending on the scope of a proposed program, for instance frequency of inspections and overall volume  of vacant buildings.  Conservatively, a full‐time Clerk/Typist position would be required to intake and  process registrations and payments, as well as maintain files as required for proper records management.   Most likely, two additional full‐time Code Enforcement Officers would be required to inspect properties,  initiate abatement, and process legal proceedings. The need could be greater.  These preliminary costs  are estimated at approximately $250,000 annually in order to initiate a vacant buildings program within  the City.  Other unforeseen costs could include additional software and staff time for additional hearings,  appeals, and legal defense.    Other Approaches    A second memo dated September 16th (Attachment 3), explores other approaches to proactively address  nuisance posted substandard properties, with the goal of returning them to renewed productive use.  The  three approaches discussed in detail below,  include receivership, foreclosure and the purchase of vacant  and distressed property. Given that all three will require legal assistance, the City Attorney’s office was  contacted for historical background and context, “Legal Considerations” are provided in the discussion  below, as well as “Cost Considerations.”    1. RECEIVERSHIP. The first approach to addressing substandard buildings is the process of receivership.   The California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) Section 17980.7(c) provides for this unique code  enforcement tool.  CHSC Section 17980.7(c) specifically authorizes a court to appoint a receiver over  a substandard property if the property owner has failed to comply with a notice or order to repair  issued by a local agency.  The receiver oversees the rehabilitation of substandard properties if the  property owner has failed to comply with an order or notice to repair issued by a local code  enforcement agency pursuant to CHSC Section 17980.6.  Appointment of the receivership petition  must be personally served on all persons with a recorded interest in the property at least three (3)  days prior to the filing of the Petition.  The CHSC provides that in determining whether to appoint a  receiver, “the court shall consider whether the owner has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to  correct the conditions cited in the notice of violation.”    Pursuant to Section 17980.7(c)(4), a city can request that the court appoint a receiver to oversee the  rehabilitation of a substandard building and grant the receiver the following powers and duties:     To take full and complete control of the Subject Property;   To manage the Subject Property and pay operating expenses, including taxes, insurance, utilities,  general maintenance and debt secured by the property;   To secure a cost estimate and construction plan from a licensed contractor and enter into  contracts for repairs necessary to correct the conditions cited in the notice to repair;   To enter into contracts and employ a licensed contractor as necessary to correct the conditions;   To collect all rents and income from the Subject Property, and use those funds to pay for the  rehabilitation work; and   To borrow funds to pay for the rehabilitation work and relocation benefits, and to secure that  debt with a recorded lien on the Subject Property for any amounts borrowed.    In addition, Section 17980.7(c)(4)(H) provides that a receiver shall have all of the powers granted to  receivers under Code of Civil Procedure section 568.  Section 568 provides that a receiver has broad  authority, under the control of the appointing court, “generally to do such acts respecting the  property as a court may authorize.”    The receivership process provides a powerful tool.  The City files a complaint with the court, and a  receiver may become an agent of the court in the efforts to reconcile the adverse conditions of a  property.  This process can even be effective in situations where a substandard property is  encumbered with various decisions against it, such as first and second mortgages, abatement and tax  liens, and deeds of trust.  If so granted by the court, the receiver may clear title through a lien‐stripping  process that can enable the receiver to financially position an economically challenged property to be  able to cost‐effectively make required improvements.  For municipalities, it can provide a solution for  those properties that pose unique economic challenges. San Bernardino’s RENU program is based  upon the receivership model. California Receivership Group prepared a prospectus for two posted  substandard properties in the community, herein included as Attachment 4.    Legal Considerations. Staff recently had a meeting with a potential receivership company who seems  interested in some of Bakersfield properties that present a health and safety concern (see Attachment  4). This will require further analysis to see if the subject properties can return income to the  company.  Likewise, if the property does not have equity, receivership will not work because the  receiver wants/needs to make a profit.    Additionally, the receivership concept was explored in the  past after significant documentation to the property owner that the property was either not up to  standard or was a nuisance to the neighborhood.  Receivership was not favored by Council at the time  because the subject substandard properties were owned free and clear by older individuals and the  optics of suing an older individual were untenable. It was also believed that excessive resources were  being concentrated in the Ward 1 and 2 areas in a punitive fashion as opposed to developing a more  positive solution.  It should also be noted that receiverships for simple nuisance properties were also  disfavored due to the amount of documentation and pre‐work up necessary before filing a lawsuit,  along with the fact above that sufficient equity is needed for a receiver to be interested. In many  cases, it is unlikely that both sufficient documentation and positive equity are present on substandard  nuisance properties.      Cost Considerations. Additional costs would be incurred for staff time to process recevierships, and  would require considerable resources in the City Attorney’s Office, Code Enforcement, Property  Management, Finance and others.      2. FORECLOSURE. The second option in addressing vacant and substandard properties is foreclosure.   Although the City has not generally utilized foreclosures as a tool in correcting substandard properties,  it still remains an option in addressing properties that have been nonresponsive to other code  enforcement actions.  When property abatement costs are left unpaid by the property owner, the  City may by ordinance establish a procedure to collect abatement and related administrative costs by  a nuisance abatement lien.  This ordinance requires notice prior to the recordation of the lien to the  owner of record of the parcel of land on which the nuisance is maintained, based on the last equalized  assessment roll or the supplemental roll, whichever is more current. A nuisance abatement lien may  be foreclosed by an action brought by the city for a money judgment.  There is more to this approach  if the desired outcome is improvement of the substandard property.  The amount of the abatement  lien is a factor in any decision to foreclose as much as the amounts of other liabilities recorded against  the property and in what priority each of those obligations are in order of payment.  Still, filing for  foreclosure can bring a nonresponsive property owner to the table, and may lead to resolution outside  of court, or act as a precursory measure in advance of receivership.  If the City successfully takes title  to a property through the foreclosure process, then the City will also then need to develop strategies  to sell the property such that the property is ultimately rehabilitated or rebuilt.      Legal Considerations. This would require the court to prioritize local liens over secured liens which is  a tremendous legal challenge to say the least, and may result in eviction of the current occupant.  (i.e.  City abatement lien of $1,000 versus a mortgage lien of $50,000).  This would also require an  ordinance which may be controversial and require environmental review.      Cost Considerations. As noted for Option 1, additional costs would be incurred for staff time to  process foreclosures, and would require considerable resources in the City Attorney’s Office, Code  Enforcement, Property Management, Finance and others.     3. City Purchase. The third alternative would be the purchase of posted substandard and/or vacant  parcels for the purpose of redevelopment or rehabilitation, activities similar to those of a former  redevelopment agency.  With outright purchase of property, the City would negotiate the purchase  of substandard properties with potentially willing property owners for the purchase of their vacant  and/or substandard property. Then, the City could sell the property to developers, conditioned upon  the subsequent redevelopment of the property.  This approach may be effective when properties are  owned free and clear, without liens or judgements against the land.  In cases where City abatement  liens are in place, these liens could be resolved as part of the purchase.    Legal Considerations:  There are questions as to the ability of the City to produce clear titles for  substandard properties that are purchased that would then be sold to another entity for  redevelopment.    Cost Considerations: While an option, this approach is heavily dependent on funding availability.   There may also be considerations related to a “gifting of public funds” , and the need to identify a fair  and transparent process for the resale of properties. Some funding has already been set aside to  pursue this option in the Urban Renewal Fund; however, the goal of that fund is to make larger  purchases (such as vacant commercial structures) that will stimulate revitalization of surrounding  neighborhoods and communities. As noted for Options 1 and 2, additional costs would be incurred  for staff time to process purchases, and would require considerable resources in the City Attorney’s  Office, Code Enforcement, Property Management, Finance, Economic & Community Development,  and others.     Remembering that many structures have been demolished in the city, there is a potential to redevelop  these properties through any of the three processes outlined above.  In each case, the financial status  of the property, such as the status of any mortgage, liens, judgements and the like, will determine a  potentially successful pathway toward repurposing the property into a productive component of  community. Developing a lien forgiveness policy would also allow the City to waive City assessed liens  and fees for the purpose of redeveloping properties through any of the three processes outlined  above.  Lien forgiveness would result in a reduction in City revenues and may create a disincentive to  comply with City assessments.  However, it may be a tool to help make redevelopment feasible under  the appropriate criteria and circumstances.     Conclusions    All three options are tools for dealing with posted substandard properties, whether from a health and  safety or nuisance perspective; however, as demonstrated above all have a heavy legal component and  may require lawsuits which require a closed session to obtain Council approval.  The City Attorney’s Office  will experience additional workload regardless of the option, involving significant resources currently  unavailable in the City Attorney’s office.  Additional costs can also be expected to the City’s Property  Management Division, Economic and Community Development and Development Services Departments.   Current staffing would need to be adjusted to align with the potential workload associated with managing  the proposed programs.     Given all of the research described above, Staff has concluded that the existing Ordinance and code  enforcement process, although potentially different in terminology, provides similar pathways that other  cities are employing through Vacant Building Ordinances.     The foreclosure and purchase options are limited by the degree a property is leveraged, wherein lien‐ burdened properties are not attractive candidates to either process. In some cases, absent lien  forgiveness, the current financial status and physical condition of a property does not provide any suitable  pathway toward a positive outcome.      However, the Receivership option provides a process wherein the court system manages the efforts of a  receiver to resolve the substandard property and provides perhaps the most feasible alternative in most  cases.  The receivership’s lien‐stripping component also provides a potential solution to highly leveraged  properties, such as those that have built up a long list of outstanding liens due to ongoing Code  Enforcement issues, etc.  Therefore, Staff concludes that the Receivership option is most feasible option  for properties that pose a health and safety issue, on a case by case basis, and with Council authorization.     Next Steps ‐ Options    Staff has provided an exhaustive overview of potential strategies to address vacant and posted  substandard properties.  Staff requests that the Committee digest the information within and provide  direction.  Some alternatives are:    1. Explore use of Receivership (Recommended). Provide direction to staff to begin the receivership  process on a pilot property and return to Committee with the results and further recommendations  on implementation of a Receivership Program.     2. No Action. Take no action; rely upon existing tools.    3. Vacant Building Ordinance. Direct Staff to prepare an amendment to existing ordinance and/or a  draft Vacant Building Ordinance for discussion at a future meeting.    4. Alternative direction by the Committee.    Attachments    1. Planning & Development Committee Memorandum (May 11, 2020)  2. Memorandum – Vacant Building Policies & Toolkit – Part 1 (August 11, 2020)  3. Memorandum – Vacant Building Policies & Toolkit – Part 2 (August 16, 2020)  4. California Receivership Group ‐ Health and Safety Receiverships for Nuisance Properties in Bakersfield      Documents Presented At The Planning & Development Committee November 17, 2020 Meeting Pl a n n i n g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e – N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0 Ci t y C o u n c i l R e f e r r a l (W a r d 1 ) Ci t y C o u n c i l C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g Pl a n n i n g & D e v e l o p m e n t Or d i n a n c e A m e n d m e n t Re a s o n a b l e A c c o m m o d a t i o n Background Th i s r e p o r t i s i n r e s p o n s e t o a r e f e r r a l f r o m C o u n c i l m a n Ri v e r a a t t h e S e p t e m b e r 9 , 2 0 2 0 C i t y C o u n c i l . Analysis WH Y a d o p t a Re a s o n a b l e A c c o m m o d a t i o n or d i n a n c e ? 20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t p o l i c y st a t e s t h a t t h e C i t y w i l l c o m p l y wi t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S B 5 2 0 . Ci t y w i l l a d o p t a n o r d i n a n c e es t a b l i s h i n g a p r o c e d u r e o r p o l i c y fo r r e a s o n a b l e a c c o m m o d a t i o n a s re q u i r e d b y s t a t e l a w b y De c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 . HC D p o w e r s s t r e n g t h e n e d . Example WH A T d o e s a Re a s o n a b l e A c c o m m o d a t i o n or d i n a n c e d o ? . . . p r o v i d e s a p r o c e s s . . . Next Steps NE X T S T E P S Pr o v i d e s t a f f d i r e c t i o n o n a d d i n g C h a p t e r 1 7 . 7 3 – R e a s o n a b l e A c c o m m o d a t i o n t o th e C i t y ’ s o r d i n a n c e . T h e C o m m i t t e e m a y : Op t i o n # 1 – P r o v i d e s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e a l t e r a t i o n o f t h e d r a f t o r d i n a n c e , to b e r e t u r n e d t o t h e C o m m i t t e e f o r f u r t h e r d i a l o g u e a n d d e l i b e r a t i o n . Op t i o n # 2 – P r o v i d e s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e a l t e r a t i o n o f t h e d r a f t o r d i n a n c e in a d v a n c e o f s c h e d u l i n g t h e i t e m f o r p u b l i c h e a r i n g w i t h t h e P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n . Op t i o n # 3 – D i r e c t s t a f f t o s c h e d u l e t h e i t e m f o r p u b l i c h e a r i n g w i t h t h e Pl a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n . Pl a n n i n g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e – N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0 Ci t y C o u n c i l R e f e r r a l (W a r d 2 ) Ci t y C o u n c i l C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g Pl a n n i n g & D e v e l o p m e n t Va c a n t B u i l d i n g s & N u i s a n c e P r o p e r t i e s T o o l k i t Background Va c a n t B u i l d i n g s & N u i s a n c e P r o p e r t i e s T o o l k i t Th i s i t e m i s i n r e s p o n s e t o a r e f e r r a l i n i t i a l l y m a d e b y C o u n c i l m e m b e r G o n z a l e s a t th e F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 2 0 C o u n c i l m e e t i n g , Th i s i t e m w a s d i s c u s s e d b y t h e P l a n n i n g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e o n M a y 2 1 , 20 2 0 a n d t h e C o m m i t t e e d i r e c t e d S t a f f t o p e r f o r m a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h o n ef f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t o a d d r e s s v a c a n t b u i l d i n g s . At t h e J u l y 1 5 , 2 0 2 0 C i t y C o u n c i l m e e t i n g , C o u n c i l m e m b e r G o n z a l e s r e q u e s t e d th a t s t a f f c o n s i d e r d e v e l o p i n g a c h r o n i c n u i s a n c e p r o p e r t y t o o l k i t w h i c h c o u l d in c l u d e a l i e n f o r g i v e n e s s p r o g r a m a n d a p u r c h a s e a n d s e l l b a c k p r o g r a m . Analysis St a f f r e p o r t e x p l o r e s f o u r ap p r o a c h e s t o t h e p r o b l e m . • Ad d i t i o n a l O r d i n a n c e • Re c e i v e r s h i p • Fo r e c l o s u r e • Pu r c h a s e Analysis St a f f r e p o r t e x p l o r e s f o u r a p p r o a c h e s to t h e p r o b l e m . • Ad d i t i o n a l O r d i n a n c e re g i s t r a t i o n mo n t h l y i n s p e c t i o n s ti e r e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f e e s / f i n e s re p l a c e s n u i s a n c e a b a t e m e n t • Re c e i v e r s h i p • Fo r e c l o s u r e • Pu r c h a s e Analysis St a f f r e p o r t e x p l o r e s f o u r ap p r o a c h e s t o t h e p r o b l e m . • Ad d i t i o n a l O r d i n a n c e • Re c e i v e r s h i p • Fo r e c l o s u r e • Pu r c h a s e Analysis Analysis Analysis St a f f r e p o r t e x p l o r e s f o u r ap p r o a c h e s t o t h e p r o b l e m . • Ad d i t i o n a l O r d i n a n c e • Re c e i v e r s h i p • Fo r e c l o s u r e St a f f t i m e i n t e n s i v e Ch a l l e n g i n g l e g a l l y Ma y r e q u i r e a d d l . o r d i n a n c e No r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o c c u r s • Pu r c h a s e Analysis St a f f r e p o r t e x p l o r e s f o u r ap p r o a c h e s t o t h e p r o b l e m . • Ad d i t i o n a l O r d i n a n c e • Re c e i v e r s h i p • Fo r e c l o s u r e • Pu r c h a s e St a f f t i m e i n t e n s i v e De p e n d e n t u p o n f u n d i n g Cl e a r t i t l e t o s e l l Next Steps St a f f r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e C o m m i t t e e d i g e s t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n a n d p r o v i d e di r e c t i o n . S o m e a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e : 1. E x p l o r e u s e o f R e c e i v e r s h i p ( R e c o m m e n d e d ) . Pr o v i d e d i r e c t i o n t o s t a f f t o be g i n t h e r e c e i v e r s h i p p r o c e s s o n a p i l o t p r o p e r t y a n d r e t u r n t o C o m m i t t e e wi t h t h e r e s u l t s a n d f u r t h e r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a Re c e i v e r s h i p P r o g r a m . 2. N o A c t i o n . Ta k e n o a c t i o n ; r e l y u p o n e x i s t i n g t o o l s . 3. V a c a n t B u i l d i n g O r d i n a n c e . Di r e c t S t a f f t o p r e p a r e a n a m e n d m e n t t o ex i s t i n g o r d i n a n c e a n d / o r a d r a f t V a c a n t B u i l d i n g O r d i n a n c e f o r d i s c u s s i o n a t a fu t u r e m e e t i n g . 4. Al t e r n a t i v e d i r e c t i o n b y t h e C o m m i t t e e .