Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/2022 Staff: Committee Members: Christian Clegg, City Manager Councilmember, Bruce Freeman – Chair Anthony Valdez, Assistant to City Manager Councilmember, Bob Smith Councilmember, Patty Gray Special Meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council – City of Bakersfield Monday, June 13, 2022 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 a. Agenda Item Public Statements b. Non-Agenda Item Public Statement 3. ADOPT FEBRUARY 10, 2022 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Update on the Vacant Building Tool Kit and Receivership Program – P. Burns 5. NEW BUSINESS B. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Parking Stall Size Standards – C. Boyle C. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Pro-Housing Designation Criteria – C. Boyle 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT Staff: Committee Members: Christian Clegg, City Manager Councilmember Bruce Freeman – Chair Anthony Valdez, Assistant to City Manager Councilmember Bob Smith Councilmember Patty Gray Special Meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council – City of Bakersfield Thursday, February 10, 2022 12:00 p.m. City Hall North – Conference Room A 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA 93301 A G E N D A The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Committee members: Councilmember Bruce Freeman, Chair Councilmember Bob Smith City Staff: Christian Clegg, City Manager Anthony Valdez, Assistant to the City Manager Virginia “Ginny” Gennaro, City Attorney Viridiana Gallardo-King, Deputy City Attorney Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director Gregg Strakaluse, Public Works Director Phil Burns, Building Director Paul Johnson, Planning Director Jason Cater, Principal Planner Stuart Patteson, Deputy Public Works Director Additional Attendees: Members of the public 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS There were no public statements. 3. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT The report was adopted as submitted 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Auto-mall Segment Improvement/Re-naming - Boyle Development Services Director Chris Boyle discussed ways to attract regional buyers to the auto mall through Caltrans signage, a street name changes at State Route 99 offramps, Wible Road Street branding, Freeway signage and collaborating business internet signage. Committee member Smith was not in favor of changing White Lane name and in-turn would prefer to add signage on Wible Road. Committee member Smith also mentioned that the responsibility would then fall more on the dealerships to collaborate. Chair Freeman asked whether the City would be responsible for managing an auto mall website and if the City would need to facilitate with dealerships. Chair Freeman requested that additional conversation be had with dealerships and refine ideas. B. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Signage Policy: Highway 99 Corridor Signage - Boyle Development Services Director Chris Boyle provided information on freeway orientated signs and requested committee recommendation to amend (Section 17.60.070.D) ordinance to allow signage at the Hosking Avenue/Highway 99 interchange. Motion by Committee member Smith to develop ordinance and bring to Planning Commission. Motion carried. C. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Objective Multifamily Standards – Boyle Development Services Director Chris Boyle provided information on the development of multi-family design standards to make progress towards effort to ensure quality multi-family projects become common within the community. Motion by Committee member Freeman to prepare mixed use and multi-family residential objective design standards within the RFP for preparation of the required housing-related zoning ordinance update and brought to Planning Commission. Motion carried. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding Adoption of the 2022 Committee Meeting Schedule – Clegg/Valdez Motion by Committee member Smith to adopt 2022 Committee Meeting schedule, removing the April 14, 2022 meeting. Motion carried, 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 12:46 MEMORANDUM June 13, 2022 TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Bruce Freeman, Chair Patty Gray Bob Smith FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director Phil Burns, Building Director SUBJECT: Update on Chronic Vacant Nuisance Building Toolkit Information provided within this memorandum functions as an update to information provided at the September 9, 2021, 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. 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. Staff has been moving forward with creating a chronic vacant nuisance building toolkit to utilize as internal policy for appropriate action for the particular scenario. As much detail has been provided in the past four memos, we will focus on where we are today, what is planned in near the future and options to consider moving forward. PROPOSED APPROACH REVISIONS In the Fiscal Year 2022/23 proposed Code Enforcement budget, the Development Services Department requested two additional Code Enforcement Officers, One Assistant Code Enforcement Officer and an Office Support Specialist. The intent of the addition is a special projects team of which chronic vacant nuisance buildings will be assigned. Over the last year, Code Enforcement has been involved with 17 demolitions. This is quite an accomplishment, yet our community has higher goals and expectations. The Code Enforcement special projects team will monitor these buildings as the team processes cases specific to each property. What does this mean for the community? • A team dedicated to address the blight due to chronic vacant nuisance buildings. • Additional attention to each building to deter occupants. • Occupants will be removed faster, and buildings resecured quicker. • More aggressive timelines on demolitions as the team is dedicated to one role and not fitting this case in with others carrying a heavy caseload. • A systematic approach to a long-standing city-wide problem. By having a dedicated team to address these issues, our complaint-driven staff will be freed up to better address the other quality of life complaints that they encounter on a daily basis. This should mean that neighborhoods should also start looking better due to more time to address property maintenance violations for entire blocks, subdivisions, or even neighborhoods. Once the Special Projects team is completely staffed, the intend is to use this team to also address directed proactive enforcement in conjunction with the Code Enforcement Section’s area teams. A good example is addressing an item like illegal signage on White Lane. CHRONIC VACANT NUISANCE BUILDING TOOL KIT Attached please find copy of the Chronic Vacant Nuisance Building (CVNB) Tool Kit which will be the guide that our staff will use to prioritize the order of enforcement and how each will be triaged. Our Chronic Vacant Building List is now being maintained and some properties have current code enforcement cases started. As we staff up, we will ramp up the case volume. Per the tool kit, our focus will be on: o Abatement of Dangerous Building process o Receivership o City Purchase / Rehab Program These processes have been discussed in extensive detail in the previous memos to the committee. ORDINANCE REVISIONS Staff reviewed and provided comments regarding several cities ordinance with various approaches related to our Chronic Vacant Nuisance Building problem. The vast majority of remedies included adding penalties or cost onto a property which unintentionally causes adverse consequences for law abiding property owners. We do need an ordinance that limits the time a property can be in a partially burned or partially constructed state. An example is the building at the northeast corner of Chester and 20th street. The other item that may need an ordinance is related to lien forgiveness where a developer is ready to build on a lot and the lot has accrued substantial liens from lack of property maintenance, etc. These two subtle code changes would benefit the City since each provide targeted incentive to embrace property rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS City staff continues forward in a court filing for assignment of a receiver on one property located at 2205 20th Street. The receiver is really close to starting rehab construction at the site. ARPA funding provides an opportunity to explore land purchase for the development of affordable housing on vacant and nuisance property which is including in the CVNB toolkit. NEXT STEPS This report has provided an update on current efforts in addressing Chronic Vacant Nuisance Buildings. Staff asks for direction to move forward as outlined in the CVNB toolkit. Chronic Vacant Nuisance Building Toolkit Background Addressing the issue of Chronic Vacant Nuisance Buildings has been a high priority for City Council Members and the public for quite some time. This is very evident by the number of Planning and Development Committee meetings where the main topic was devoted to nuisance buildings. The goal of this document is to provide a clear understanding of the tools available and recommended actions for the various building/property conditions that we encounter. Definitions Chronic Vacant Nuisance Building – A building that has been vacant for a period of time and the owner has been non-responsive, which causes detriment and contributes to blight to the neighborhood due to lack property maintenance. These properties typically include a minimum of three separate Code Enforcement cases in a two-year period and/or a combination of multiple calls for service from Bakersfield Fire Department and/or Bakersfield Police Department. Posted Substandard Building – A building that lacks one or more of the required elements to be occupiable. (i.e., No Electric Service, broken heater, major fire damage) Addressing Chronic Vacant Nuisance Buildings Categorize Code Enforcement, through the budget process, will have a dedicated team that will focus entirely on Chronic Vacant Nuisance Buildings, Posted Substandard buildings and buildings that sustained fire/structural damage. We have started preparation for adding additional staff to implement the program. Code Enforcement Staff have begun ranking our Chronic Vacant Nuisance Buildings by creating a database that includes Code Enforcement properties that have a Posted Substandard Building and have multiple Code Enforcement cases, Bakersfield Fire Department calls for service and BPD calls for service. This list will provide us with a method to set a priority level for each Chronic Vacant Nuisance Building identified for evaluation and determination of the best remedy or course of action. The priority rating will also take into consideration the impacts on excessive utilization of City Resources (Code Case, Calls for service BPD & BFD) which should also correlate with neighborhood complaints. Once this list is completed it will be integrated into our GIS system for analysis and mapping. This will be a fluid list as property conditions, ownership and responsiveness change all the time. Staff will be able to provide ranking information and anticipated abatement timelines at this stage. Attached please find Exhibit “A” – Chronic Vacant Nuisance Building list. This will be our starting list and properties added and deleted over time. The property list has been mapped as shown in attached Exhibit “B”. Site Survey Photos are included in Exhibit “C”. Evaluate Remedy Remedies include Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Receivership or Purchase program. As we drill down into each property, we will follow this model to categorize the appropriate remedy. We have found that each property needs to be extensively evaluated to determine the most appropriate process. The flow chart purposely leaves the evaluation up to a team meeting. Prior to the team meeting, a detailed assessment must be completed. The detailed assessment would include site visit with Building Inspection Supervisor along with Code Enforcement Officer and possibly consultant building contractor (this may be done by photos or video from earlier site visits). The detailed assessment would evaluate the scope of work needed to bring the property into compliance. The anticipated evaluation team would include staff from Code Enforcement, the City Attorney’s office and from the Economic and Community Development Department (ECD). Evaluation Criteria • Visual Blight to Neighborhood • Frequency of Calls for Service (Code, BPD, BFD) • Litigation Guarantee (Equity or lack of) • Results of Detailed Assessment (Anticipated Cost) • Timing of each process and its impacts At this time, we know the receivership process is lengthy. Time could be a huge factor depending on the neighborhood issues. If the owner cannot be located, other potential legal remedies will need to be evaluated. 25Chronic Vacant Nusiance Building SubstantialStructural Abatementof Dangerous Building ProcessDemolition of Building DetailedAssessment Clean Vacant Lot with Liens Receivership Purchase/RehabNO Yes Litigation Guarantee Ownership/Equity Detailed Site Assessment Evaluate Options Team Meeting Sell, Rehabor Rebuild Property Reconditioned Case/Calls for Service History Understanding Timelines and Cost Differential Abatement of Dangerous Building From Case assignment to Demolition complete 90-120 days Variables – Time for Owner (including any allowed extension), Asbestos reports, asbestos abatement and utility disconnect delays (Electricity and Gas) Staff time, litigation guarantee and contractor actual cost for service is captured per our administrative fee schedule and if not paid it is added as a lien to the property. Receivership Code Enforcement Case Prep time 75-90 days City Attorney’s Office Petition for Receiver 100-120 days* Receiver – Course of Action Set 30-90 days Receiver – Completes Work required 60-180 days CAO files motion to recover attorney’s fees and costs Receiver files motion to be discharged – petition for fees 30 days* Receiver discharged *Requires personal service of property owner, could take several days At the end of the process, the CAO files motion to recover attorney’s fees and costs, and receiver files motion to be discharged. This includes staff investigation time and necessary reports. Property purchase and Rehabilitation Plan Case Evaluation 14-21 days ECD is in process of developing plan over next 60-90 days. It is expected that this process would take 30-60 days on purchase side and another 60-120 days for rehab work. Cost for Code time, litigation guarantee to be absorbed by PSVS funds. The actual rehab program to be funded by ARPA funds. Structures with Multiple Fires Case Type Code Case Status Stage RRT Tickets CE cases since posted Ward Year Tax Default 801 Baker St. (No fire reported) No case No fire damage observed 1 None 2 N/A 812 Baker St.ADB 22-00200 Active Bid Request in Process 47 (1217) 16 2 N/A 1217 Baker St.PM 22-02038 Active Re-inspection 2 (2020) 5 2 N/A 1717 Baker St. BLDC 22-02412 Active Initial Inspection 0 (2021) 1 2 N/A 829 Chester Ave.BLDC 21-05957 Active Posted Follow-up 8 (2021) 3 2 N/A 1721 De Wolfe St.PM/BLDC 22-089/22-1867 Active Bid Request in Process 0 (2022) 2 2 6/30/2021 1416 E. 9th St.PM 22-01322 Active Abatement Inspection 1 (2021) 2 2 N/A 205 H St. /207 H St.BLDC 22-01194 Active Re-inspection 0 (2022) 1 2 N/A 1336 Haley St. Officer unable to locate 1200 Ming Ave.No Case City Property 2 1415 Oregon St.ADB 21-04150 Active Pend PG&E to Demo 2 (2021) 3 2 N/A 715 34th Street PM 22-02925 Active Initial Inspection 19 (2016) 10 3 N/A 516 S. Union Ave. PM 21-05371 Active Bid Request in Process 5 (2021) 2 2 N/A 505 Union Ave. BLDC 22-02926 Active Initial Inspection 1 (2020) 2 2 N/A 441 1st St. PM 22-02023 Active Contract Awarded 57 (2020) 5 2 N/A 223 18th St.PM/BLDC 22-02924 Active Re-inspection 20 (2018) 7 2 N/A 1400 18th St.PM 22-02347 Closed Abated by Owner 7 Not Posted 10 PM case 2 N/A 913 Watts St. PM 22-00388 Active Contract Awarded 1 (2017) 17 1 6/28/2013 405 Cypress St. BLDC 13-06409 Active Posted Follow-up 3 (2013) 18 2 N/A 220 Bernard St. ADB 21-01290 Active Demo in Progress 2 (2020) 3 3 N/A 3207 Union Ave. PM 14-01290 Active Posted Follow-up 9 (2014) 22 3 N/A Chronic Public Nuisance Structures 3804 University Ave.PM 21-00008 Active Posted Follow-up 4 (2021) 7 3 6/30/2015 6100 Quaking Aspen St.PM 22-00114 Active Contract Awarded 0 (2012) 19 6 N/A 308 17th St. PM 22-02147 Active Abatement Inspection 18 (2015) 21 2 N/A 1416 Terrace Way PM 19-04309 Active Posted Follow-up 7 (2016) 7 2 N/A 3808 Bryn Mawr Dr PM 22-02886 Active Re-inspection 1 (2015) 13 3 N/A 802 Union Ave PM 17-07487 Active Posted Follow-up 7 (2017) 8 2 N/A 110 Truxtun Ave. PM 13-01723 Active Posted Follow-up 2 (2013) 8 2 N/A 1102 34th St. BLDC 19-07014 Active Posted Follow-up 15 (2016) 9 3 N/A 2688 Oswell St. PM 14-00658 Active Posted Follow-up 60 (2014) 17 2 N/A 1416 Richland St. PM 15-03718 Active Posted Follow-up 1 (20150 8 2 N/A Rehab/demolished Structures 611 Baker St.ADB 21-05266 Closed Demolished 25 (2021) 5 2 N/A 217 Union Ave. ADB 20-06883 Closed Demolished 6 (2017) 11 2 N/A 29 Kincaid St.PM Closed Rehabilitated 0 (2018) 10 2 N/A 1023 Townsley Ave. PM Closed Rehabilitated 0 (2015) 9 2 N/A Property in Receivership Process 2825 California Ave. Receivership 22-01956 Active Re-inspection 15 (2012) 44 2 6/30/2004 2205 20th St. Receivership 21-01272 Active Posted Follow-up 12 (2015) 18 2 N/A Kern County Jurisdiction 216 Amador Ave. 524 Irene St. 2222 N. Kern St 801 S. Oleander St. 216 Amador Ave 631 Baker St 812 Baker St 801 Baker St 1721 De Wolf St 1217 Baker St 1705 Baker St 829 Chester Ave 1412 E 9th St 1200 Ming Ave 524 Irene St 205 H St 2222 N Kern St 715 34th Street 1415 Oregon St 801 S Oleander Ave 441 1st Street 225 18th St1400 18th St 2825 California Ave. 2205 20th St. 516 S Union Ave 405 Cypress St. 220 Bernard St. 913 Watts St. 3207 Union Ave. 217 Union Ave. 505 Union Ave 6100 QUAKINGASPEN ST 3804 UNIVERSITY AVE 3808 BRYN MAWR DR 1416 TERRACEWAY 308 17TH ST 110 TRUXTUN AVE 1102 34TH ST 802 UNION AVE 217 UNION AVE1416 RICHLAND ST 2688 OSWELL ST WARD 5 WARD 6 WARD 2 WARD 3 WARD 4 WARD 7 WARD 1 0 2,500 5,000 Feet R:\User_Projects\Developmental_Services\Building\KDAVISSON\FireDamageStructuresMay2022\ Vacant Buildings with Multiple Fires & Chronic Public Nuisance Structures Legend Vacant Buildings w/ Multiple Fires (28) Chronic Public Nuisance Structures (11) MEMORANDUM June 13, 2022 TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Bruce Freeman, Chair Bob Smith Patty Gray FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Parking Stall Size Standards This report is in response to a referral requesting information be presented to the Planning and Development Committee concerning parking stalls size standards. BACKGROUND The City of Bakersfield has specific standards for the size of a parking stall/space. Per Section 17.68.030 of the Municipal Code, the minimum dimensions for required parking stalls is 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep. Parallel parking stalls have an additional 6 feet in depth (24 feet in total) to provide sufficient maneuvering space. There are no provisions for compact parking stalls in the Municipal Code. Therefore, compact stalls are prohibited in calculating the number of overall required parking spaces but are allowed if provided in excess to the minimum standard stall size. The Public Works Department’s Standards Parking Space Dimensions detail sheet provides additional information for stall dimensions dependent upon parking lot designs and the relative parking stall angle employed in the lot design. This resource is included as an attachment. OTHER JURISDICTIONS Staff researched other jurisdictions to determine comparable parking stall dimensions in other municipalities. The prevailing stall width is 9 feet amongst the comparable cities, with stall depth ranging between 18 and 23 feet. The largest standard found was in the City of Clovis, with a width of 10 feet and a depth of 20 feet. Just less than half of the comparable cities allowed for compact stalls, with the average compact stall being approximately 8.5 feet by 16 feet for those municipalities who allowed the reduced stall standard. From this research, staff’s determination is that Bakersfield’s stall size is generally in keeping with other municipalities. Please review Table 1 for additional information. Table 1. CITY Minimum Parking Stall Size-Standard Minimum Parking Stall Size-Compact FREMONT 9 ft. by 19 ft. 8 ft. by 16 ft. FRESNO 9 ft. by 19 ft. 8.5 ft. by 16.5 ft. GLENDALE 8.5 ft. by 18 ft. None MODESTO 9 ft. by 18 ft. 7.5 ft. by 15 ft. ONTARIO 9 ft. by 18 ft. None OXNARD 9 ft. by 19 ft. None PASADENA 8.5 ft. by 18 ft. Prohibited RIVERSIDE 9 ft. by 18 ft. None SAN BERNADINO 9 ft. by 23 ft. None STOCKTON 9 ft. by 19 ft. 9 ft. by 15 ft. COUNTY OF KERN 9 ft. by 20 ft. 8 ft. by 16 ft. COUNTY OF TULARE 9 ft. by 20 ft. None COUNTY OF FRESNO 9 ft. by 19 ft. 8.5 ft. by 16.5 ft. OPTIONS The information in this report is meant to be informational in nature. Staff requests that your Committee digest the information within this report and any testimony associated with the Committee meeting itself and provide direction regarding further consideration of this topic. CEQA analysis will not be completed as part of this report as there is no project associated with the preparation of this report per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). NEXT STEPS Staff will take the direction of the Committee. ATTACHMENTS 1. Public Works Department - Standards Parking Space Dimensions detail sheet Bakersfield Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Ordinance Parking and Loading Standards Bakersfield Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Ordinance Parking and Loading Standards July, 2008 Chapter 17.58, Page 22 July, 2008 Chapter 17.58, Page 22 t CURB ~ ~o,. 1<='c ~).,~<~ 0" '5}<9. ?'~ ~ ~L ~ ~v T::s v c D E J ~ F G HT I -<=>-fc:>- W/>U TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCKJNG II/OOULE INTERLOCK TO CURB II/OOULE II/OOULE PARKING STAlL STAlL STAlL AISLE STAlL MODULES ANGLE WIO'TH LENGTH ~c WIO'TH CEPTH WAlL I~ I~ WAlL =-CROSS- & PARALLEL OF LAR I~ lmJ~ TO TO BUM"ER AISLE AISLE STAlL TO AISLE UNE TO WAlL li'IIERLOO< a.Rl WAlL OJERHANG OFFSET SETBACK C»E-1'1\1(). WAY (t) WIO'TH (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) ~~ (2C+D) (I) (J) (K) (L) 450 9.0' 12.7 27.CY 19.1' 12.7 15.9' 47.1 44.5' 45.9' 50.9' 1.8' 6.4' 12.7 14.0' 24.0' 9.5' 13.5 27.5 19.4' 11.7 16.1' 47.Z 43.9' 45.5 50.5' 1.8' 6.7 12.7 14.0' 24.0' 10.0' 14.1' 28.0' 19.8' 11.7 16.3' 47.8' 442 46.0' 51.3' 1.8' 7.1' 12.7 14.0' 24.0' 000 9.0' 10.4' 232 20.1' 16.9' 17.8' 54.8' 52.5' 52.6' 57.1' 22 2.6' 9.0' 14.0' 24.0' 9.5 11.0' 23.5 20.3' 15.9' 18.0' 542 51.8' 52.0' 56.5 22 2.1 9.0' 14.0' 24.0' 10.0' 11.5' 23.8' 20.6' 15.9' 18.1' 54.5 52.0' 52.4' 57.1' 22 2.9' 9.0' 14.0' 24.0' 75° 9.0' 9.3' 20.4' 19.7 24.0' 18.5' 622 61.1' 59.9' 63.4' 2.4' 0.6' 4.1 14.0' 24.0' 9.5' 9.8' 20.6' 19.8' 23.0' 18.6' 61.4' 602 59.0' 62.6' 2.4' 0.6' 4.7 14.0' 24.0' 10.0' 10.4' 20.7 20.0' 23.0' 18.7 61.6' 60.3' 592 63.0' 24' 0.6' 4.7 14.0' 24.0' goo 9.0' 9.0' 18.0' 18.0' 25.0' 18.0' 61.0' 61.0' 58.5' 61.0' .2.5' 0.0' 0.0' 14.0' 24.0' 9.5' 9.5 18.0' 18.0' 25.0' 18.0' 61 .0' 61.0' 58.5 61.0' 2.5 0.0' 0.0' 14.0' 24.0' 10.0' 10.0' 18.0' 18.0' 25.0' 18.0' 61 .0' 61.0' 58.5 61.0' 2.5 0.0' 0.0' 14.0' 24.0' NOTES III fv1A.RKINGS IN PARKING LOTS SHALL BE PAINTED WITH WHITE TRAFFIC LINE PAINT (RAPID DRY WATER BORNE) THAT 1\tEETS CURRENT CAL TRANS STANJ:\1\RDS FOR HIGH\NAYMARKINGS, EXCEPT FOR fv1A.RKINGS DENOTING HANDICCIP PARKING SPACES WHICH SHALL BE BLUE IN ca.OR. SEE HANDICAP PARKING DETAIL ~ MINIMUM 2-WAY DRIVE AISLE WIDTHS SHALL BE 24' UNLESS BAO<ING WIDTH GOVERNS (SEE NOTE 3). ~ AISLE WIDTH (D) IS MINIMUM 1-WAY AISLE WIDTH REQUIRED FOR BACKING Approved by """' PURPOSES. STANDARD 07197 Plannirg CRAWN @) PARAU..a STALL LENGTH= 18'+4' = ZZ Corrrnision: BJOIGEG PARKING SPACE O£O<EO S.20-90 DIMENSIONS SC'<.E NTS APFAOIIED S>£ETNO. CITY OF BAKERSRELD CALIFORNIA T-10 01YB'G>EER F\JBLIC WCRKS OEPARTh£NT MEMORANDUM June 13, 2021 TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Bruce Freeman, Chair Bob Smith Patty Gray FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Prohousing Policies and Designation Requirements This report is in response to a referral from Councilman Freeman directing staff to provide information on the Prohousing Designation program available through the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). BACKGROUND In the past five years, the state of California has passed many laws centered on addressing the housing crisis in the state. The Housing Crisis Act, Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Law, No Net Loss Law, Inclusionary Housing Law, and extensive Housing Element compliance and reporting laws have been enacted by the state legislature. The establishment of Prohousing Policies was enacted in Government Code Section 65589.9 as an incentive to accelerated housing production as a complement to the aforementioned housing laws. Most recently, AB 1029 amended the prohousing policy incentives program created by the state. ANALYSIS Government Code Section(GCS) 65589.9(b) states, “For award cycles commenced after July 1, 2021, jurisdictions that have adopted a housing element that has been found by the department [HCD] to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of this article pursuant to Section 65585, and that have been designated prohousing pursuant to subdivision (c) based upon their adoption of prohousing local policies, shall be awarded additional points or preference in the scoring of program applications for AHSC grants, TTC grants, infill incentive grants and other state programs.” The recent addition to that list is incentives for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. Per GCS 65589.9(f)(2) “Prohousing local policies” means policies that facilitate the planning, approval, or construction of housing. These policies may include, but are not limited to, the following: “(A) Local financial incentives for housing, including, but not limited to, establishing a local housing trust fund. (B) Reduced parking requirements for sites that are zoned for residential development. (C) Adoption of zoning allowing for use by right for residential and mixed-use development. (D) Zoning more sites for residential development or zoning sites at higher densities than is required to accommodate the minimum existing RHNA for the current housing element cycle. (E) Adoption of accessory dwelling unit ordinances or other mechanisms that reduce barriers for property owners to create accessory dwelling. (F) Reduction of permit processing time. (G) Creation of objective development standards. (H) Reduction of development impact fees. (I) Establishment of a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone (J) Preservation of affordable housing units through the extension of existing project-based rental assistance covenants to avoid the displacement of affected tenants and a reduction in available affordable housing units.” The law tasked HCD to create an application process for considering municipalities for prohousing city status. HCD began accepting applications last year (2021). To date, only the City of Sacramento has attained prohousing city status. Each municipality (applicant) must satisfy for thresholds to qualify for application. They are: (1) The applicant has adopted a Compliant Housing Element. (2) The applicant has submitted a legally sufficient Annual Progress Report. (3) The applicant has completed, on or before the relevant statutory deadlines, any rezone program necessary to provide vacant sites sufficient to satisfy its RHNA requirements. (4) The applicant is in compliance, at the time of the application, with other applicable state housing law. Additional criteria must also be satisfied in order to qualify the application for scoring. The application is a points-based application. HCD will validate applicants’ scores based on the extent to which each identified Prohousing Policy contributes to the acceleration of housing production. HCD will also use four scoring categories set forth below. Applicants shall demonstrate that they have enacted or proposed at least one policy that significantly contributes to the acceleration of housing production in each of the four categories. A Prohousing Designation requires a total score of 30 points or more across all four categories: Category 1 – Favorable Zoning and Land Use: (A) Three (3) Points. Sufficient sites, including rezoning, to accommodate 150 percent or greater of the current or draft RHNA, whichever is greater, by total or income category. (B) Three (3) Points. Permitting missing middle housing uses (e.g., duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes) by right in existing low-density, single-family residential zones. (C) Two (2) Points. Sufficient sites, including rezoning, to accommodate 125 to 149 percent of the current or draft RHNA, whichever is greater, by total or income category. These points shall not be awarded if the applicant earns three points pursuant to paragraph (1)(A). (D) Two (2) Points. Density bonus programs which exceed statutory requirements by 10 percent or more. (E) Two (2) Points. Increasing allowable density in low-density, single-family residential areas beyond the requirements of state Accessory Dwelling Unit law (e.g., permitting more than one ADU or JADU per single- family lot). These policies shall be separate from any qualifying policies under paragraph (1)(B). (F) Two (2) Points. Reducing or eliminating parking requirements for residential development as authorized by Government Code section 65852.2; adopting vehicular parking ratios that are less than the relevant ratio thresholds at subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of Government Code section 65915, subdivision (p)(1); or adopting maximum parking requirements at or less than ratios pursuant to Government Code section 65915, subdivision (p). (G) One (1) point. Zoning to allow for residential or mixed uses in one or more nonresidential zones (e.g., commercial, light industrial). Qualifying non-residential zones do not include open space or substantially similar zones. (H) One (1) point. Modification of development standards and other applicable zoning provisions to promote greater development intensity. Potential areas of focus include floor area ratio; height limits; minimum lot or unit sizes; setbacks; and allowable dwelling units per acre. These policies must be separate from any qualifying policies under paragraph (1)(B). (I) One (1) Point. Establishment of a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone, as defined in Government Code section 65620, or a housing sustainability district, as defined in Government Code section 66200. (J) One (1) Point. Demonstrating other zoning and land use actions that measurably support the Acceleration of Housing Production. Category 2 – Acceleration of Housing Production Timeframes: (A) Three (3) Points. Establishment of ministerial approval processes for a variety of housing types, including single-family and multifamily housing. (B) Two (2) Points. Establishment of streamlined, program-level CEQA analysis and certification of general plans, community plans, specific plans with accompanying Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), and related documents. (C) Two (2) Points. Documented practice of streamlining housing development at the project level, such as by enabling a by-right approval process or by utilizing statutory and categorical exemptions as authorized by applicable law (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21155.1, 21155.4, 21159.24, 21159.25; Gov. Code, § 65457; Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15303, 15332; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21094.5, 21099, 21155.2, 21159.28). (D) Two (2) Points. Establishment of permit processes that take less than four months. Policies under this subparagraph must address all approvals necessary to issue building permits. (E) Two (2) Points. Absence or elimination of public hearings for projects consistent with zoning and the general plan. (F) One (1) Point. Establishment of consolidated or streamlined permit processes that minimize the levels of review and approval required for projects, and that are consistent with zoning regulations and the general plan. (G) One (1) Point. Absence, elimination or replacement of subjective development and design standards with objective development and design standards that simplify zoning clearance and improve approval certainty and timing. (H) One (1) Point. Establishment of one-stop-shop permitting processes or a single point of contact where entitlements are coordinated across city approval functions (e.g., planning, public works, building) from entitlement application to certificate of occupancy. (I) One (1) Point. Priority permit processing or reduced plan check times for ADUs/JADUs, multifamily housing, or homes affordable to lower- or moderate-income households. (J) One (1) Point. Establishment of a standardized application form for all entitlement applications. (K) One (1) Point. Practice of publicly posting status updates on project permit approvals on the Internet. (L) One (1) Point. Limitation on the total number of hearings for any project to three or fewer. Applicants that accrue points pursuant to paragraph (2)(E) are not eligible for points under this subparagraph. (M) One (1) Point. Demonstration of other actions, not listed above, that quantifiably decrease production timeframes or promote the streamlining of approval processes. Category 3 – Reduction of Construction and Development Costs: (A) Three (3) Points. Waiver or significant reduction of development impact fees for residential development. (B) Two (2) Points. Adoption of ordinances or implementation of other mechanisms that result in less restrictive requirements than Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 to reduce barriers for property owners to create ADUs/JADUs. Examples of qualifying policies include, but are not limited to, development standards improvements, permit processing improvements, dedicated ADU/JADU staff, technical assistance programs, and pre-approved ADU/JADU design packages. (C) One (1) Point. Adoption of other fee reduction strategies separate from paragraph (3)(A), including fee deferrals and reduced fees for housing for persons with special needs. (D) One (1) Point. Promoting innovative housing types (e.g., manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, park models) that reduce development costs. (E) One (1) Point. Measures that reduce costs for transportation-related infrastructure or programs that encourage active modes of transportation or other alternatives to automobiles. Qualifying policies include, but are not limited to, publicly funded programs to expand sidewalks or protect bike/micro-mobility lanes; creation of on-street parking for bikes; transit-related improvements; or establishment of carshare programs. (F) One (1) Point. Adoption of universal design ordinances pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17959. (G) One (1) Point. Establishment of pre-approved or prototype plans for missing middle housing types (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) in low-density, single family residential areas. (H) One (1) Point. Demonstration of other actions, not listed above, that quantifiably reduce construction or development costs. Category 4 – Providing Financial Subsidies: (A) Two (2) Points. Establishment of local housing trust funds or collaboration on a regional housing trust fund. (B) Two (2) Points. Provide grants or low-interest loans for ADU/JADU construction affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. (C) Two (2) Points. A comprehensive program that complies with the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code, § 54220 et seq.) and that makes publicly owned land available for affordable housing, or for multifamily housing projects with the highest feasible percentage of units affordable to lower income households. A qualifying program may utilize mechanisms such as land donations, land sales with significant write-downs, or below- market land leases. (D) Two (2) Points. Establishment of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District or similar local financing tool that, to the extent feasible, directly supports housing developments in an area where at least 20 percent of the residences will be affordable to lower income households. (E) One (1) Point. Directed residual redevelopment funds to affordable housing. (F) One (1) Point. Development and regular (at least biennial) use of a housing subsidy pool, local or regional trust fund, or other similar funding source. (G) One (1) Point. Prioritization of local general funds for affordable housing. (H) One (1) Point. Demonstration of other actions, not listed above, that and quantifiably promote, develop, or leverage financial resources for housing.” A total of 60 points are available and there are enhancement factors that allow HCD to award extra points. HCD will monitor each successful Prohousing Designation on an ongoing basis and may take revocation action as might warranted. CONSIDERATIONS The Prohousing Designation is a complex and weighty process that should not be entered into lightly. Each point awarded represents a policy decision and commitment to perform into the future. Many of those decisions are significant transitions away from currently established norms. An example would be that one point is available with the elimination or replacement of objective development standards with subjective development and design standards. Another would entail elimination of public hearings for projects consistent with zoning and the general plan, further reducing discretionary authority over land-use permitting. In other cases, financial impacts must be evaluated. Three points may be awarded for waiver or significant reduction of development impact fees for residential development. When development does not address impacts, those costs inherently shift to the ratepayer. Decision makers must determine the net benefits or costs to their constituents. The City currently does not meet the thresholds necessary to submit an application for Prohousing Designation. Although the City has an adopted and compliant Housing Element and has maintained legally sufficient Annual Progress Report submittals to HCD, the City is not in full compliance with other applicable state housing law. This will be resolved in conjunction with the ongoing 6th Cycle Housing element effort. Timing right now would favors waiting to make a decision as to any application for Prohousing Designation. The Development Services Department in concert with consultants is currently actively working toward adoption of the Housing Element and a comprehensive General Plan update. Completion of the Housing Element will include supporting rezoning and ordinance updates. Conclusion of these efforts would act as a precursor to any application for Prohousing Designation. These important policy documents will most certainly educate and guide decision makers toward understanding the relative merits of a Prohousing Designation. Additionally, all of these efforts combined may actually create opportunities for additional points sufficient for a successful application. RECOMMENDATION Although at present the City essentially is unable to qualify for application for Prohousing Designation, with adoption of the Housing Element and supporting rezoning and ordinance amendments the City will be in compliance with all housing law and able to consider making an application at that time. Staff recommends Option 2 below. This report is informational in nature. CEQA analysis will not be completed as part of this report as there is no project associated with the preparation of this report per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). OPTIONS Staff requests that your Committee digest the information within this report and any testimony associated with the Committee meeting itself and provide direction regarding further consideration of this topic. Options available are: Option 1: Receive/file informational report and no further action required by staff. Option 2: Receive/file informational report and bring back additional options after Housing Element is completed. Option 3: Receive/file informational report and provide alternative direction from the Committee to staff. NEXT STEPS Staff will take the direction of the Committee. ATTACHMENTS A - Government Code Section 65589.9 B - Prohousing Designation Program Application Attachment A Government Code Section 65589.9 (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to create incentives for jurisdictions that are compliant with housing element requirements and have enacted prohousing local policies. It is the intent of the Legislature that these incentives be in the form of additional points or other preference in the scoring of competitive housing and infrastructure programs. It is the intent of the Legislature that, in adopting regulations related to prohousing local policy criteria, the department shall create criteria that consider the needs of rural, suburban, and urban jurisdictions and how those criteria may differ in those areas. (b) For award cycles commenced after July 1, 2021, jurisdictions that have adopted a housing element that has been found by the department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of this article pursuant to Section 65585, and that have been designated prohousing pursuant to subdivision (c) based upon their adoption of prohousing local policies, shall be awarded additional points or preference in the scoring of program applications for the following programs: (1) The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program established by Part 1 (commencing with Section 75200) of Division 44 of the Public Resources Code. (2) The Transformative Climate Communities Program established by Part 4 (commencing with Section 75240) of Division 44 of the Public Resources Code. (3) The Infill Incentive Grant Program of 2007 established by Section 53545.13 of the Health and Safety Code. (4) Additional bonus points may be awarded to other state programs when already allowable under state law. (c) The department shall designate jurisdictions as prohousing pursuant to the emergency regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (d) and report these designations to the Office of Planning and Research, and any other applicable agency or department, annually and upon request. (d) By July 1, 2021, the department, in collaboration with stakeholders, shall adopt emergency regulations to implement this section. (e) On or before January 1, 2021, and annually thereafter, the Department of Finance shall publish on its internet website the list of programs included under subdivision (b). (f) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) “Compliant housing element” means an adopted housing element that has been found to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of this article by the department pursuant to Section 65585. (2) “Prohousing local policies” means policies that facilitate the planning, approval, or construction of housing. These policies may include, but are not limited to, the following: (A) Local financial incentives for housing, including, but not limited to, establishing a local housing trust fund. (B) Reduced parking requirements for sites that are zoned for residential development. (C) Adoption of zoning allowing for use by right for residential and mixed-use development. (D) Zoning more sites for residential development or zoning sites at higher densities than is required to accommodate the minimum existing regional housing need allocation for the current housing element cycle. (E) Adoption of accessory dwelling unit ordinances or other mechanisms that reduce barriers for property owners to create accessory dwelling units beyond the requirements outlined in Section 65852.2, as determined by the department. (F) Reduction of permit processing time. (G) Creation of objective development standards. (H) Reduction of development impact fees. (I) Establishment of a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone, as defined in Section 65620, or a housing sustainability district, as defined in Section 66200. (J) Preservation of affordable housing units through the extension of existing project- based rental assistance covenants to avoid the displacement of affected tenants and a reduction in available affordable housing units.