HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/2021
Staff: Committee Members:
Christian Clegg, City Manager Councilmember, Bruce Freeman – Chair
Councilmember, Bob Smith
Councilmember, Patty Gray
Regular Meeting of the
Planning and Development Committee
of the City Council – City of Bakersfield
Thursday, September 9, 2021
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. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
3. ADOPT MAY 6, 2021 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4. DEFFERED BUSINESS
A. General Plan Update – Boyle/Johnson
B. Committee Discussion and Recommendations Regarding Vacant Building
Ordinance – Boyle/Burns
5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
Planning and Development Committee
Regular Meeting September 9, 2021 Agenda
Page 2
SPECIAL NOTICE
Public Participation and Accessibility
September 9, 2021 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.
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. 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.
2. The public may participate in the 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. Wednesday, 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. Wednesday, 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. Wednesday,
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.
S:\Council Committees\2021\Planning and Development\03_May
Page 1
JK::mc
Committee Members
Staff: Jacqui Kitchen Councilmember, Bruce Freeman Chair
Assistant City Manager Councilmember, Patty Gray
Councilmember, Bob Smith
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, May 6, 2021
1:00 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, Patty Gray
City Staff: Christian Clegg, City Manager
Jacqui Kitchen, Assistant City Manager
Kevin Truelson, Assistant to the City Manager
Anthony Valdez, Administrative Analyst
Virginia “Ginny” Gennaro, City Attorney
Viridiana Gallardo-King, Deputy City Attorney
Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director
Phil Burns, Building Director
Paul Johnson, Planning Director
Zac Meyer, Assistant Public Works Director
Additional Attendees: Members of the Public
2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
There were no public comments made.
3. ADOPT MARCH 11, 2021 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
The report was adopted as submitted.
/S/ Jacqui Kitchen
DRAFT
S:\Council Committees\2021\Planning and Development\05_May\May6 Page 2
JK:mc
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Boutique Wineries in Downtown –
Kitchen/Boyle
Development Services Director Boyle provided a verbal presentation summarizing the
proposed modifications to the zoning ordinance to include the definition of boutique winery
and incorporating their use as “by right” in the downtown area; subject to basic operational
standards described in the memorandum included in the agenda packet.
Committee member Smith inquired about any parking requirements for boutique wineries.
Planning Director Johnson stated parking would be computed separately by use.
Committee Chair Freeman made a motion to present the ordinance to the Planning
Commission for consideration prior to presenting it to the City Council. The motion was
unanimously approved.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Committee Discussion and Recommendations Regarding Enhanced Standards for Large
Apartment Complexes including Overlays and Elevations Standards for Infill and General
Projects – Kitchen/Boyle
Development Services Director Boyle provided a verbal presentation in response to the referral
made by Councilmember Parlier at the January 6, 2021 City Council meeting to explore
developing standards for large apartment complexes. The presentation summarized the
memorandum included in the agenda packet. State Bill 330 requires that cities no enact
objective design standards effective January 1, 2020.
Tom Dee inquired if the standards would affect residential development. Development
Services Director Boyle responded it would not.
Kern Homebuilders Association Director Dave Dmohowski commented about concerns
regarding with adding complexities for review and additional costs.
City Manager Clegg stated Councilmember Parlier had concerns with land use patterns in
particular an over-concentration of multifamily complexes in particular areas of the city. The
general plan amendment currently underway will address concerns with land use.
Committee Chair Freeman directed staff to clarify with Councilmember Parlier the objective
of his referral. He also requested staff research the concept of a development standards
checklist. The additional is to be presented at a future Committee meeting.
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
None
7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m. DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
September 9, 2021
TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Bruce Freeman, Chair
Patty Gray
Bob Smith
FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Update Progress Report
This report is intended to provide information on the current status of progress toward updating the General Plan.
The last report to the Planning and Development Committee occurred over one year ago on June 30, 2020.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
In accordance with California Government Code Section 65300, the City and the County of Kern jointly adopted
the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (“MBGP”) and certified the associated programmatic Environmental
Impact Report (“EIR”) in 2002 to plan for the long-term future development of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.
The 2002 MBGP included an update to the text of the previous 1990 General Plan and made minor revisions to
the land-use map designations that had originally been prepared in the late 1980's. Staff prepared text changes
“in-house” and a consultant assisted in preparation of the EIR. The MBGP contains seven elements as required
by state law, including Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Two
additional optional elements, a Public Services and Facilities Element and Parks Element, reflect the specific needs
and objectives of the City. The MBGP also includes a reservation for the “Kern River Plan Element,” which was
jointly adopted by the City and County in 1985.
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EFFORT
On October 16, 2019, the Planning Division released a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the preparation of a
comprehensive analysis and recommendations for options in pursuing an update to the City’s General Plan. The
RFP closed on November 15, 2019 and the City Council approved a contract with Rincon Consultant Inc. (“Rincon”)
for $49,764.00 at its January 22, 2020 meeting. Rincon prepared the contracted General Plan Update Strategy
and Options Report and presented the report to the Planning and Development Committee, Planning Commission,
and City Council during the summer of 2020. The City Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive General
Plan update. A programmatic EIR will accompany the comprehensive update.
Planning and Development Committee
Regular Meeting September 9, 2021
General Plan Update
Page 2
On February 12, 2021, staff released an RFP for the preparation of the Comprehensive General Plan Update, Zone
Mapping, and programmatic Environmental Impact Report. The RFP originally anticipated an April 12, 2020
submittal deadline, but was extended multiple times due to receiving only one proposal. The extended RFP closed
on August 24, 2020 and staff is reviewing submittals from Infrastructures Engineers and Rincon.
OTHER ADVANCED PLANNING EFFORTS
Three other related and notable deliverables are also on the Development Services workboard. These are the
preparation of a Municipal Services Review, Climate Action Plan, and the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.
Municipal Services Review
The Development Services Department has completed the RFP process for the preparation of the Municipal
Services Review and Sphere of Influence Update (“MSR/SOI”). The MSR/SOI is required to be prepared every five
years in collaboration with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and in compliance with the Cortese
Knox Herzberg Act. An MSR was last prepared in 2015. The initial RFP release occurred on February 12, 2021 and
was subsequently extended to a final submission date of June 14, 2021. The City received only one proposal for
this project, from QK, Inc. After careful consideration, staff determined that QK, Inc. is a qualified vendor and was
chosen to prepare the MSR, its accompanying Sphere of Influence update, and associated environmental
document. Scoring 61 of 65 points possible within staff review of the RPF, QK, Inc. is highly qualified to complete
the required project and presented a bid within the expected reasonable costs identified for this Local Early Action
Planning (“LEAP”) grant funded project.
Climate Action Plan
California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), signed into law in 2006, committed the state to reducing GHG emissions. A
Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) is a planning document that provides community-generated strategies to guide the
City, its residents, and local businesses in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent with State goals
for addressing California's contributions to climate change. In compliance with applicable laws, the Development
Services Department solicited proposals from consultants to prepare a CAP for the City. The initial RFP release
occurred on February 12, 2021 and was subsequently extended to a final submission date of June 14, 2021. The
Planning Division received three (3) proposals by the posted deadline. After careful consideration, staff selected
Ascent Environmental, Inc. as the chosen consultant to prepare the CAP and associated environmental document.
Scoring 59 of 65 points possible within staff review of the RPF, Ascent Environmental, Inc. is highly qualified to
complete the required project and presented a bid within the expected reasonable costs identified for this LEAP
grant funded project.
6th Cycle Housing Element Update
State law requires that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element every five or eight years to plan for
meeting the housing needs of all people in the community. The current Housing Element (2015-2023) was
certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in February of 2016. The
2024-2032 Housing Element will analyze the City’s progress toward meeting the housing goals put forward in the
2015-2023 Housing Element, assess the City’s current and future housing needs, and identify enough adequate
housing sites to meet those needs within the 2024-2032 planning period.
The Housing Element also evaluates the City’s current regulatory systems to assess whether they create
unnecessary constraints on housing production at all affordability levels. Since the adoption and certification of
the 2015-2023 Housing Element, several new housing laws have been enacted that aim to further remove barriers
to housing production and incentivize the development of housing, particularly affordable housing. The 2024-
2032 Housing Element update shall incorporate all new requirements and provide the City with a guide toward
achieving the State’s housing goals.
Planning and Development Committee
Regular Meeting September 9, 2021
General Plan Update
Page 3
The 2024-2032 Housing Element update will also evaluate updated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
requirements and will develop strategies for meeting those needs. A Vacant Sites Inventory will be created such
that sufficient lands necessary to satisfy the housing needs of all income groups will be identified. Additionally,
the 2024-2032 Housing Element update may serve to inform the preparation of an affordable housing strategy
that analyzes the financial feasibility of providing needed affordable housing in the City, and set forth strategies
for development of such housing.
The initial RFP release occurred on February 12, 2021. The RFP originally anticipated an April 12, 2020 submittal
deadline, but was extended multiple times due to receiving only a total of two (2) proposal. The desired consultant
must have an established working relationship with HCD and familiarity with State housing law. In addition, the
consultant must be proactive in maintaining communication with City Staff and meeting deadlines with Staff and
the requirements of HCD for the timely certification of the Housing Element. The extended RFP closed on August
24, 2020 and staff is reviewing submittals from ECONorthwest, Infrastructures Engineers, and Rincon.
NEXT STEPS
The information provided is informational in nature. No action by the Committee is required.
MEMORANDUM
September 9, 2021
TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Bruce Freeman, Chair
Patty Gray
Bob Smith
FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Update on Vacant Buildings & Chronic Nuisance Properties Toolkit
Information provided within this memorandum functions as an update to information provided at the
November 17, 2020 Planning and Development Committee meeting. At that meeting, the topic of vacant
and chronic nuisance properties and what to do to address them was discussed at length. Staff outlined
that there is a spectrum of potential tools for addressing challenging properties, from standard code
enforcement and abatements to more complex solutions that would result in rehabilitation and new
ownership in some cases. Ordinance-based solutions were discussed as a possible proactive solution.
Four other strategies for addressing the issue were also discussed: receivership, foreclosure, lien
forgiveness and City purchase of applicable property. Each approach and the associated process was
examined, to include information on the legal and financial cost considerations of each option. From the
Committee’s discussion prioritizing which strategies to move forward with first, staff was directed to
initiate receivership on a trial basis. Staff was also directed to prepare a draft policy or program guide on
the use of the different tools within the spectrum. While staff has not fully developed a policy with
guidelines for the use of each of the tools, staff has been pursuing the build out of several of the tools. As
each of the tools is developed, a more comprehensive policy guide for their use can be developed. An
update on the build out of the tools for addressing chronic nuisance properties is provided below.
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.”
Planning and Development Committee
Regular Meeting September 9, 2021
Vacant Buildings & Chronic Nuisance Properties
Page 2
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.
Filing for receivership, as noted in earlier information comes at a cost. Given that investment, staff
recommended a pilot approach to both test the effectiveness of this tool and identify best practices and
work out a streamlined process that can be used for additional future properties. Over the past nine
months, staff have worked through this initial pilot program. The Code Enforcement Division has prepared
a complete record of effort to resolve the nuisance, the City Attorney Office has expended significant staff
time preparing court submittals, and court filing fees have been paid. The pilot program has already
produced important lessons learned that should facilitate more effective processing of future
receiverships.
As directed, on August 19, 2021, the City filed with Kern County Superior Court for the assignment of a
receiver for property located at 2205 20th Street. This property has been a chronic nuisance property for
an extended period of time and is a good candidate for receivership. Staff will keep the Council abreast
on the results of this first effort.
CITY PURCHASE
Purchasing property for the purpose of rehabilitating nuisance property was not prioritized by the
Planning and Development Committee last November given the need to identify funding for the program.
Fortunately, a potential source of funding for City purchase and rehabilitation of vacant and chronic
nuisance properties has been identified since that time. On March 11, 2021 the American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA) of 2021 was signed into law. The plan provides financial resources to state and local
municipalities through the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) program to address
the health and economic impacts of COVID-19. The City of Bakersfield will receive approximately
$94,517,089 in federal entitlement funding to address local needs.
One area of investment available to the City is the use of ARPA to invest in lower-income communities.
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the ability of many residents to meet their most basic needs. As a
result, housing insecurity, limited economic opportunity, and high rates of unemployment
disproportionately affected lower-income neighborhoods across the country. To address the needs of
these neighborhoods, the Department of the Treasury Department is allowing funds to be deployed to
address the health and economic needs of these communities. To identify eligible areas, the Treasury
follows the Department of Housing and Urban Developments Qualified Census Tracts (QCT) methodology.
These census tracts meet one or both of the following standards: At least 50% of households make 60%
or less of the Area Median Gross Income (AMGI), or have a poverty rate of 25% or more. Within the City
of Bakersfield, 14 QCT’s are eligible for investment under the ARPA program to meet the needs of lower-
income communities. See Exhibit A.
Planning and Development Committee
Regular Meeting September 9, 2021
Vacant Buildings & Chronic Nuisance Properties
Page 3
On May 17, 2021, the Department of the Treasury adopted an interim final rule establishing the
framework for how ARPA funds will be used. Per the interim final rule, one eligible use of funding to
investment in QCT’s is the development of affordable housing within those tracts. A 60-day comment
period followed the release of the rule. At this time, the final rule has not been published and specific
program parameters, including eligible housing types (i.e. transitional housing, rental housing, and
homeownership housing) and project types (new construction, rehabilitation, preservation) are unknown.
However, staff anticipates receiving additional guidance on the use of funds in the coming months. Once
more program guidelines are released, the City will be able to determine how ARPA funds can be deployed
to build housing in these neighborhoods.
As a general rule, affordable housing funding provides gap financing to make developments financially
feasible for the developer. In exchange, the developer agrees to rent or sell units at levels considered
affordable to lower-income households for a certain period of time. To facilitate this process, the City of
Bakersfield has historically taken one of the following roles in the development process:
Purchase of properties to later sell to a qualified developer to create affordable housing. Using
this methodology, the City can sell the property at a reduced rate, or cover onsite cost (i.e.
demolition of substandard units or clearance) to make the parcel suitable for development;
Provide loans or grants with favorable financing terms to make projects financially feasible. With
this approach, the developer purchases the property through a private transaction and then
receives assistance to reimburse project cost that would otherwise require bank financing or
additional funding from the developer; or
A combination of the above-mentioned options.
The first approach, which involves the City securing site control to later sell to a qualified developer,
provides the city more control of project outcomes, however it is a lengthier process. Recently, the
passage of AB 1486 by the State of California created the Surplus Land Act (SLA), which delegated
enhanced enforcement capabilities to the Department of Housing and Community Development to
require local municipalities sell properties in accordance with the requirements of California Code 54221
and 54222. Under the SLA, affordable housing developers and government entities are provided a 60-day
window to notify the City of their intention to purchase the site. Interested parties are subsequently given
a 90-day window to negotiate with the City for the sites purchase. While an exemption within the
regulation allows property sold for affordable housing to undergo under a Request for Proposals (RFP)
process in lieu of the 54222 process, the dual escrow approach and RFP process create a lengthier timeline
for conveying properties to affordable housing developers. Under the second approach, the City would
financially support a non-city entity to purchase and then redevelop nuisance properties. Under this
model, the property would go through one escrow and, once site control is obtained by the developer,
the City would provide ARPA funds to support the site’s redevelopment. This approach is quicker while
achieving the same outcome of redeveloping the property. While both approaches have been used by the
City to develop affordable housing, funding sources and the current regulatory environment often dictate
which direction is more amenable to the current needs of the city. There are time requirements for
incurring and expending ARPA funds.
With ARPA funding, the Committee may wish to provide additional feedback and direction as to utilizing
land purchase as an added tool in addressing vacant and substandard property within the City.
VACANT BUILDING ORDINANCE
Staff reviewed Fresno’s Blighted Vacant Building Ordinance along with a follow-up review for other vacant
building ordinances that were previously reviewed to see what additional elements may have been
included. Vacant Building Ordinances are intended to address the public nuisance, blight, and
Planning and Development Committee
Regular Meeting September 9, 2021
Vacant Buildings & Chronic Nuisance Properties
Page 4
maintenance issues that arise from vacant properties that are not effectively kept up to City Standards.
Vacant Building Ordinances typically address standards already within the municipal code along with an
additional registration process. A detailed comparison of ordinances was discussed in the May 11, 2020
memo to the Planning and Development Committee. The broad staff analysis was that financial penalties
are unlikely to produce different results as a majority of the residential properties already have significant
financial assessments against them.
Fresno’s Blighted Vacant Building Ordinance is very similar to those previously reviewed. Fresno’s
ordinance is structured in a way to reiterate each relevant violation element within their municipal code
to highlight the expectations for vacant buildings within their City. However, staff did identify some
sections in the residential and commercial vacant buildings section that were new and unique, which
require property owners to:
Take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent criminal activity, including, but not limited
to, the use and sale of controlled substances, prostitution, and criminal street gang
activity, on the premises. Examples of reasonable steps include actively monitored
security alarm systems and adequate physical inspections. (Residential)
Install and maintain in good working order a security system such that breaches of any
doors or windows, or the presence of intruders, alert the property owner, a property
manager, and/or a security company, so that intruders may be removed. (Commercial)
Demolish or fully repair fire damaged residential buildings that are not safe and legal to
occupy within 90 days of the occurrence of the fire; the Director may grant a
continuance if documentation is provided to the satisfaction of the Director showing any
delay is of no fault of the property owner and the property owner has made good faith
efforts to demolish or fully repair within 90 days; until demolition or repairs are
completed, the property owner shall secure the building to prevent unauthorized
access.
Based on this initial analysis, including these sections into our Municipal Code could offer additional tools
that could impact the number of vacant buildings that are broken into and experience structure fires.
However, there are additional considerations to be explored for each of these potential elements.
For example, based on how we permit alarms in Bakersfield, this would also add on an alarm permit and
the associated regulations. There could be an increase in the number of alarms or false alarms that public
safety responds to if building owners are not responsive. Staff recommends additional dialogue for
potential impacts and how to mitigate for vacant properties included in this program.
In addition, the Fresno ordinance utilizes a tiered administrative citation method for enforcement of
properties that do not take action to include security or fire prevention. For many residential properties,
this would have the same outcome as additional fines or assessments. This may have more impact on
viable commercial properties.
Finally, code language related to time requirements for remediating partially burned structures would
help create a timeline for correction. However, in staff experience many insurance companies take a least
90 days for a claim after fire investigations releases the site. Further dialogue with stakeholders could
determine a more appropriate timeline.
Planning and Development Committee
Regular Meeting September 9, 2021
Vacant Buildings & Chronic Nuisance Properties
Page 5
In summary, staff recognizes the policy intent to reduce the number of nuisances experienced. Additional
security, fire prevention and fire remediation requirements could reduce the number of nuisances and/or
engage owners in the active management of their properties. Staff has reached out to the City of Fresno
to gain additional insight and a response is still pending. As noted above, staff recommends further
dialogue with stakeholders to address these additional considerations. And it is worth noting that these
additional tools ultimately rely on fiscal impact for compliance and enforcement. These tools are more
likely to be effective for a narrower scope of vacant commercial properties than they would be for
residential and commercial properties broadly. Because some properties have not historically been
remediated through fiscal impacts, staff also recognizes the need to continue to develop other chronic
nuisance property tools outlined in this memorandum. While these other tools also require formal
processes, they often lead to abatement or remediation in a more timely and tangible manner than the
enforcement of ordinances that carry fiscal penalties.
LIEN FORGIVENESS
An additional tool that could be added to the overall tool kit for the City to address substandard properties
is a Lien Forgiveness Program. A program of this nature would offer forgiveness of City liens and
assessments when a substandard property is purchased, and a new owner is seeking to rehabilitate the
property. Often, the forgiveness of liens allows the rehabilitation This type of program is typically
administered within a Housing or Community Development function. As staffing has been hired for the
new Economic and Community Development Department and specifically the Housing and Neighborhood
Vitality Division within that Department, staff has been directed to now also research and pursue policy
development for a Lien Forgiveness Program as well. The Economic and Community Development
Department will have an update on this program for the next Committee meeting on this topic.
FORECLOSURE.
There is no further information concerning foreclosure as a tool in the efforts to address vacant and
nuisance properties. Based on staff recommendations and Committee direction, Foreclosure has not
raised to a level of priority among potential solutions.
CONCLUSIONS
City staff continues forward in a court filing for assignment of a receiver on one property located at 2205
20th Street.
ARPA funding provides an opportunity to explore land purchase for the development of affordable
housing on vacant and nuisance property.
NEXT STEPS
This report has provided an update on current efforts in filing for receivership. Staff will continue to
update the Committee on the progress of the receivership process.
Additionally, staff has also identified a funding stream that may be utilized for land purchase. Staff asks
for direction from the Committee in further exploring APRA funding for land purchase as an additional
tool toward addressing vacant and nuisance properties.
City staff will begin researching policy language for a Lien Forgiveness Program.
Planning and Development Committee
Regular Meeting September 9, 2021
Vacant Buildings & Chronic Nuisance Properties
Page 6
Exhibit A – Qualified Census Tracts