Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/30/2022 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 Tuesday, August 30, 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 JUNE 13, 2022 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Update on Parking Stall Size Standards – C. Boyle 5. NEW BUSINESS B. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – C. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding General Plan Update and Housing Element – C. Boyle D. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Downtown Commercial Vacant Building Ordinance (Fresno Ordinance) - 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 Monday, June 13, 2022 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: Councilmember Bruce Freeman, Chair Councilmember Bob Smith City Staff: Christian Clegg, City Manager Gary Hallen, Assistant City Manager Anthony Valdez, Assistant to the City Manager Brianna Carrier, Assistant to the City Manager Virginia “Ginny” Gennaro, City Attorney Josh Rudnick, Deputy City Attorney Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director Phil Burns, Building Director Paul Johnson, Planning Director John Frando, Fire Chief 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS a. Agenda Item Public Statements – No public statement b. Non-Agenda Item Public Statement – No public statement 3. ADOPT FEBRUARY 10, 2022 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT The report was adopted as submitted. Motion by Committee member Smith and seconded by Council member Freeman. Motion carried. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Update on the Vacant Building Tool Kit and Receivership Program – P. Burns Phil Burns, Building Director summarized the Chronic Vacant Nuisance Building Tool Kit provided to the committee in the agenda packet. 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. Remedies include Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Receivership or Purchase program. 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. At the end of the process, the City Attorney Office files motion to recover attorney’s fees and costs, and receiver files motion to be discharged. This includes staff investigation time and necessary reports. 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. Councilmember Freeman asked for more clarification on the receivership process and Abatement of buildings. City Attorney, Ginny Gennaro provided clarification on receivership and noted that at this time the City has only completed 1 receivership, as it is quite a lengthy process. Planning Director Burns provided additional information on abatement process and time frame. Councilmember Smith asked about imminent domain and what would be required by council to move in that direction and what is the process. City Attorney Ginny Gennaro offered to bring back a flow chart that better explains process depending on different situations. 5. NEW BUSINESS B. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Parking Stall Size Standards – C. Boyle Development Services Director Chris Boyle provided the committee information concerning standard size of parking stalls. 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. In comparing with other municipalities, it was found that 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. Council member Freeman requested that city staff provide a comparison of traditional parking stalls and compact parking stall ratio with dimensions of parking stalls for compact vehicles. C. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Pro-Housing Designation Criteria – C. Boyle Director Boyle provided the committee information on the Pro-housing Designation program available through the State of California Department of housing and Community Development. Each municipality must satisfy four thresholds to qualify for application. The Pro-housing 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. Staff requests that your committee evaluate the information within the provided report and during committee meeting and provide direction regarding further consideration of this topic. Motion by council member Smith to receive and file report and bring back additional options after housing element is completed. Motion was seconded by councilmember Freeman. Motion carried. Director Boyle invited committee members to attend the next General Plan meeting. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 1:04 p.m. MEMORANDUM August 30, 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 a follow up to the Planning and Development Committee meeting of June 13, 2022, wherein additional direction was provided concerning the dimensional standards for parking stalls and the utilization of compact parking stalls. A comparison of parking stall ratios was also requested. 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. As part of the June 13th report, staff researched other jurisdictions to determine comparable parking stall dimensions. The prevailing stall dimension was 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. 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. FOLLOW UP Compact Stall Review The compact parking stall was first introduced in the late 1970s, a byproduct of the gas crisis created by the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, of skyrocketing fuel prices during the middle of the 1970s, and the rise in smaller, fuel- efficient “compact” cars, usually imported from Japan. From that era, smaller parking stalls were incorporated into parking fields as “compact” parking stalls, typically smaller to accommodate these new smaller cars. The size of compact stalls has not changed dramatically since their introduction, and staff research (as noted above) places an average compact stall size at 8.5 feet in width and 16 feet in depth. That parking stall size worked quite nicely for the compact cars of that era. A 1980 4-door Honda Accord sedan was only 5-feet, 4-inches wide and 14-feet, 3-inches long. By comparison, a 2020 Honda Accord sedan is 6-feet, 1-inch wide and 16 feet long. Cars have grown in size in the last 40 years, not gotten smaller. As an extreme example, the typical 1980 Ford F-150, before the rise of the super cab, was 15-feet, 9-inches long. Today, that same pick-up runs 20 feet and longer. The mathematical point being made is that compact stalls barely hold compact cars of today, and simply do not have the required dimensions to hold many newer vehicles. Compact Stall Comparison Staff research showed that 8 of the 14 cities surveyed (57%) provide an allowance for compact parking stalls in their development codes. The average size of compacts stalls is 8 feet, 2-inches by 15-feet, 9-inches. The average percentage of compacts stalls allowed is 27.5%. Many of the comparable cities require a minimum number of required parking stalls in a parking field before compact stalls are allowed. Table 1. CITY Standard Parking Stall Size Compact Parking Stall Size Percent of Compact Stalls Allowed BAKERSFIELD 9 ft. by 18 ft. Prohibited N/A FREMONT 9 ft. by 19 ft. 8 ft. by 16 ft. 35% FRESNO 9 ft. by 19 ft. 8.5 ft. by 16.5 ft. 25% GLENDALE 8.5 ft. by 18 ft. None N/A MODESTO 9 ft. by 18 ft. 7.5 ft. by 15 ft. 30% ONTARIO 9 ft. by 18 ft. None N/A OXNARD 9 ft. by 19 ft. None N/A PASADENA 8.5 ft. by 18 ft. Prohibited N/A RIVERSIDE 9 ft. by 18 ft. 8 ft. by 16 ft. 15% SAN BERNARDINO 9 ft. by 23 ft. None N/A STOCKTON 9 ft. by 19 ft. 9 ft. by 15 ft. 30% COUNTY OF KERN 9 ft. by 20 ft. 8 ft. by 16 ft. 20% COUNTY OF TULARE 9 ft. by 20 ft. None N/A COUNTY OF FRESNO 9 ft. by 19 ft. 8.5 ft. by 16.5 ft. 25% LOS ANGELES 8 ft. by 15 ft. 8 ft. by 15 ft. 40% Thus, a typical compact parking stall size would be 8.5 feet wide by 16 feet long. A typical percentage of compact stalls allowed would be 25 percent. No comparable municipality allows incorporation of compact stalls in residential land use settings. Parking Comparison for Land Uses Parking ordinances are notoriously complex, with unique nuances and countless exceptions, variations, and limitations for the long list of land uses contained therein. Bakersfield’s parking matrix is no different. This parking comparison by land use was requested by the Committee. In an effort to simplify the (very) complex, four land uses were compared. County parking standards are usually very different than city standards and, with the exception of the County of Kern, were omitted. The information provided is far from comprehensive but does provide a digestible picture of the very complex and dynamic parking landscape. An example of simplifying the complex can be made with the City of San Bernardino parking standard for general office, where office of up to 2,000 sq. ft. require 1 space for each 200 sf, offices from 2,001 to 7,500 sq. ft. require 1 space for each 250 sf, offices from between 7,501 to 40,000 sq. ft. require 1 space for each 300 sf, and offices from between 40,001 sq. ft. and greater require 1 space for each 350 sf. This does not mention variations for adaptive overlay districts within mixed-use, commercial and residential reuse areas. The point is that it is very difficult to project the parking standards for individual municipalities into a comprehensive form. Nonetheless, Table 2 below does provide some meaningful insights. Table 2. Land Use/Parking Findings The City’s parking standards generally land in the middle of comparable municipalities, finishing with parking standards that were .21 parking stall per 1000 square feet above the average for the municipalities and uses surveyed. The City had two uses above and two uses below the average for the surveyed uses. Essentially, the City’s parking is in keeping with other comparable cities. Curiously, having lived in the Fresno area for nearly two decades, this data also explained why the author of this report could never find a parking space in that community. My personal experiences and professional opinion would not support initiating a parking standard as liberal as the City of Fresno, nearly 33 percent less than the average among comparable municipalities. RECOMMENDATIONS If the Committee wishes to initiate an ordinance that provides for compact parking stalls within the City’s Municipal Code, staff recommends a compact stall size of 8.5 feet in width by 16 feet in depth. Further, staff would recommend an initial allowance of up to 20 percent of required parking as compact parking stalls so as to gauge the utility of smaller parking stalls before considering expanding the allowance. This ratio is in keeping with the County of Kern’s ordinance. Virtually no comparable city provides for compact stalls in residential settings. It is recommended that no compact stalls be incorporated into residential settings. Staff would recommend that any wholistic change to the City parking regulations that sought to alter the ratios of parking stalls provided for each use be reserved for after the General Plan update is completed when a comprehensive update of Title 17 – Zoning should be completed to best reflect the vision of the new General Plan. CITY Restaurant Bank General Office General Retail Average/1000 FRESNO 8/1000 2.5/1000 2.5/1000 2.5/1000 3.88 PASADENA 10/1000 3/1000 3/1000 3/1000 4.75 FREMONT 10/1000 5/1000 3.3/1000 3.3/1000 5.40 GLENDALE 12.5/1000 5/1000 2.7/1000 2.7/1000 5.73 SAN BERNADINO 10/1000 5/1000 4/1000 4/1000 5.75 COUNTY OF KERN 10/1000 5/1000 4/1000 4/1000 5.75 RIVERSIDE 10/1000 5.55/1000 4/1000 4/1000 5.89 BAKERSFIELD 13.33/1000 3.3/1000 sf 4/1000 sf 3.3/1000 sf 5.98 STOCKTON 10/1000 5/1000 5/1000 5/1000 6.25 OXNARD 13.33/1000 4/1000 4/1000 4/1000 6.33 ONTARIO 13.33/1000 5.55/1000 4/1000 4/1000 6.72 MODESTO 16.66/1000 3.3/1000 5/1000 4/1000 7.24 AVERAGE/1000 sf 11.26 4.45 3.77 3.68 5.79 Based on the preliminary analysis of parking ratios employed for each use, the parking regulations currently appear consistent with comparable cities. 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 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 to staff. Potential options are: 1. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment incorporating compact stalls into the City’s parking regulations providing for a compact parking stall of 8.5 feet in width by 16 feet in depth, at a ratio of 20% of all stalls beyond the first twenty stalls required, with no compact stalls being allowed in residential use settings. 2. Provide alternative direction to staff. 3. Take no action. Receive and file this report. NEXT STEPS Staff will take the direction of the Committee. ATTACHMENTS None. August 30, 2022 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Bruce Freeman, Chair Bob Smith Patty Gray FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Floor Area Ratios This report is in response to a referral from Councilman Gonzales directing staff to review ordinance specific to Floor Area Ratio (FAR), analyze FAR as a potential barrier to greater density downtown, and provide a recommendation. BACKGROUND Floor Area Ratio was incorporated into the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan with the March 1990 adoption, and the Bakersfield Municipal Code in February 1995 (Ordinance No. 3631). Available records on this item are limited; however, a correlation can be made between the implementation of the FAR and the reduced parking ratio that was instituted for the “Central District” area where the FAR is applicable. The Bakersfield Municipal Code states that FAR provisions are only applicable to development within the C-B (Central Business) and C-C (Commercial Center) Zone Districts. The Downtown Bakersfield area is formally referred to as the “Central District” by the Municipal Code and is illustrated in Chapter 17.58. The area is generally considered 23rd Street (north), Q Street (east), California Avenue (south), and F Street (west). This area is primarily zoned C-B (Central Business) and C-C (Commercial Center), with a General Plan designation of MUC (Mixed Use). Using City Hall North as an example, the building is located on an approximate 30,540 square foot parcel; therefore, the total gross building area can be 91,620 square feet. The parcel is currently developed with a 51,525 square foot building and associated parking. ORDINANCE PROVISIONS Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined in the municipal code (Section 17.04.282) as the gross floor area of all buildings on a parcel or site divided by the net parcel or site area as depicted in the following: FAR = Total gross building floor area (sq. ft.) Total net parcel/site area (sq. ft.) The maximum FAR in both the C-B (Central Business) and C-C (Commercial Center) Zone Districts is 3.0. However, additional floor area may be permitted by the approval of public benefit features and the following areas are exempt from the FAR calculation. 1) All gross floor area below grade. 2) Mechanical equipment storage areas located on roof. 3) Parking areas, excluding parking garages. 4) Gross floor area of public benefit features (further described below). 5) Top deck of a parking structure if it is not covered by a roof. The Zoning Ordinance also allows the Planning Director to permit additional floor area when the project includes one or more of the following public benefit features: 1) Open Space, Atrium, Plaza, or Garden Available to the Public. Intent: To provide public open space which provides quiet retreats from surrounding activity in the intensely developed areas of downtown or a center. Maximum Bonus area: 10,000 square feet. 2) Sculptured Building Tops. Intent: To provide visual interest and variety in the downtown or center skyline. Bonus area: Maximum reduced floor area eligible for a bonus shall be 30,000 square feet. 3) Public Art Work. Intent: To encourage a high quality, imaginative interpretation of the various media. Maximum Bonus area: 5,000 square feet. 4) Voluntary Building Setback. Intent: To expand the landscaped area along streets to encourage additional open space along public streets that link large open space areas, parks and plazas. Maximum Bonus area: 10 feet times the street frontage where additional setback provided. 5) Overhead Weather Protection. Intent: To improve pedestrian comfort along pedestrian routes. Maximum Bonus area: All area protected. 6) Day Care Facilities (Children and Adult). Intent: To provide a safe and supportive environment for a wide range of educational, social and health related services for both children and adults. Maximum Bonus area: 20,000 square feet. Approved public benefit features must be installed at the same time as the additional bonus area and remain for the life of the building. A feature may only be diminished or discontinued if the additional floor area allowed in return for the specific feature is permanently removed, or by replacing it with another public benefit feature of at least the equivalent value. Thus, floor area ratios are applied only in the C-B (Central Business) and C-C (Commercial Center) Zone Districts, which allow for a 3.0 FAR. There are provisions in place to increase FAR on a case-by-case basis, typically as a part of specific embellishments to a project site. No other zone districts in the City utilize FAR as a zoning tool. IMPLICATIONS Floor area ratios are but one tool that shape the form and function of the built environment. By defining total potential square footage as a ratio of overall lot size, the built environment is inherently limited as to how large a structure can become. Other ordinal tools that shape the urban form include building height limitations, zoning setbacks, and/or lot coverage. In the C-B (Central Business) Zone District, the following ordinance is applied: In the C-C (Commercial Center) Zone Districts, the following ordinance is applied: Essentially, development in the C-B and C-C Zone Districts would enjoy no setback requirements (except in specific instances) and liberal building height restrictions. In that no setbacks are typically applied, lot coverages would be allowed over 100% of any parcel area (except in specific instances). These development standards would guide the scale of development in these zones, the predominant districts of the City’s downtown core. Noting that the FAR regulations are applicable to the downtown districts of the City, and that a correlation has been made between the implementation of the FAR and the reduced parking ratio that was also instituted for the “Central District” area, it is important to note that parking for potentially much larger structures will still be a requirement of development if the City desires to create a functional downtown core, and whereas removal of FAR requirements will provide for greater square footage in the downtown area, provision of additional parking to serve this square footage will be an increasing prerequisite to ensure vitality in the downtown sector moving forward. Thus, removal of FAR requirements in the downtown results in building scale being guided almost exclusively by building height requirements. Parking requirements will also create inherent constraints. Staff is not averse to the removal of FAR requirements from the C-B (Central Business) and C-C (Commercial Center) Zone Districts. Removal provides for an increase in building scale commensurate with a growing (and rising) city center. Staff tempers support for this action in noting that a wholistic parking strategy for the downtown core will be necessary in order to fully capitalize on the potential densities of a non-FAR-constrained downtown landscape. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that your Committee digest the information within this report and any testimony associated with the Committee meeting and provide direction to staff. 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. Potential options include: 1. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment that removes ordinance specific to the application of floor area ratios in the C-B (Central Business) and C-C (Commercial Center) Zone Districts and prepare appropriate environmental documentation in support of the ordinance amendment. 2. Provide alternative direction to staff as it relates to retention or elimination of FAR ordinance in the C-B (Central Business) and C-C (Commercial Center) Zone Districts. 3. Provide no direction at this time. Receive and file this report. MEMORANDUM August 30, 2022 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 on September 9, 2021. 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. The Kern River Plan Element was subsequently adopted in 2007. GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE History In January 2020, the City Council approved a contract with Rincon Consultant Inc. (“Rincon”) for $49,764.00 to prepare a General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report, which was presented 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. After an extended Request for Proposal period, the City selected Rincon for the preparation of the Comprehensive General Plan Update, Zone Mapping, and programmatic Environmental Impact Report. On October, 21, 2020, the Council approved an Independent Contractor's Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. ($2,766,189) for the preparation of a General Plan update, associated zone mapping, and associated environmental document; and an Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. ($298,541) for the preparation of a Housing Element update and associated environmental document. The kick-off meeting occurred on 11/30/21 and both staff and applicant have been actively engaged in community outreach efforts since that time. To date, three introductory workshops and four visioning workshops (both in- person and virtual) have been completed. Multiple pop-up events have been held. The Bakersfield 2045 – RISE website has been populated, launched and promoted as a go-to resource for all things General Plan and Housing Element related. Through the website, a community survey has been completed. Visit www.bakersfield2045.com. A draft Existing Conditions Background Report has been received, reviewed and returned with comment. A final report will be released soon. The Issues, Opportunities, Vision workshop is also being formulated at this time. Stakeholder interviews will be completed in late 2022. The Housing Element efforts, outside of public outreach and comment, have been focused on the finalization of a vacant sites inventory in compliance with the recently released Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) assigned to the City. A zoning ordinance amendment and City-sponsored zone change effort will be necessary to meet the RHNA requirements. Approximately 750 parcels of land must be rezoned to bring about an HCD- compliant vacant sites inventory. The City remains generally on schedule with the project timeline illustrated below. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that your Committee digest the information within this report and any testimony associated with the Committee meeting itself and receive and file this informational report. 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 The information provided is informational in nature. No action by the Committee is required. MEMORANDUM August 30, 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 Buildings BACKGROUND Information provided within this memorandum functions as an update to information provided at the June 22, 2022, Planning and Development Committee meeting. At that meeting, the topic of vacant and chronic nuisance properties and a Chronic Vacant Nuisance Building Toolkit were 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 implementing the chronic vacant nuisance building toolkit as proposed. Staff also had a conference call with the City of Fresno staff about their Code Enforcement Programs and staffing with emphasis on their Vacant Building Ordinance for Commercial Buildings. CITY OF FRESNO CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM To understand Fresno’s approach and programs, it is first important to understand some major differences between our programs. The City of Fresno’s Code Enforcement team, not including administrative and support staff, has 89 Code Enforcement Officers spread over three divisions. They also have 5 to 6 attorneys strictly assigned to Code Enforcement. Fresno’s Code Enforcement program also has the necessary labor to complete all their property maintenance and board up abatements. In addition, the City has 1 attorney dedicated to Code Enforcement. Like our program, Fresno’s is predominately a complaint-based program. They have both a residential and commercial vacant building ordinance and, on paper, these ordinances appear to be quite comprehensive and tough. Fresno’s Special Projects Team handles their Vacant Building Ordinance. Currently, there are 56 properties on their vacant building list, of which Fresno advised that ten needed to be removed. One staff member is assigned to just these 46 properties where his duties is to go by each property once a week and also talk to the neighbors about activity. When asked about the items in their ordinance, we found that they operate based on a case-by-case basis and are flexible toward getting what they can reasonably expect from each property. Many of the vacant buildings have been stripped of electrical system and/or plumbing system. It would cost millions to comply with the ordinance per verbatim. They do require an alarm system when they can reduce the electricity down to just the one circuit necessary for it. Thus, they must be flexible. The assigned officer has no time for any other cases as these have a constant drain of time due to all the necessary communications. Sometimes the assigned officer will need assistance and works with other departments like the police department to clear buildings when needed. Based on the responses provided City staff would prefer to first conduct an onsite field trip to the City of Fresno before proposing an ordinance to the Committee, as it appears that what is in writing is not feasible in practice. The City of Fresno has other programs that were discussed which will be followed up on. For instance, they have an illegal dumping program which currently has 15 cameras deployed in the field. They have a Management for Real Property ordinance that has a higher penalty schedule for property owners that are non-responsive to Code Enforcement notices. CHRONIC VACANT NUISANCE BUILDING TOOL KIT Staff is still in the process of finalizing the starting building list. We are also in the process of hiring the staff to operate this program. Four employees, two code enforcement officers, one assistant code enforcement officer and an operations support specialist, will complete the Special Projects Unit complement. We hope to have a thorough update in a couple of months. ORDINANCE REVISIONS After Staff completes the site visit of the City of Fresno, City staff will come back with a series of potential ordinance revisions with the focus on blighted buildings/properties. We feel it would be best to talk with Fresno’s staff on the ground to get a better understanding of how the ordinances are being used together to better understand what exactly we need to draft. CONCLUSIONS City staff continues to make steps forward in creating a comprehensive program to address blighted buildings and properties. Dedicated personnel should be on staff within the next six weeks. RECOMMENDATION This report has provided an update on current efforts in addressing Chronic Vacant Nuisance Buildings. Staff asking for direction to visit City of Fresno and bring forward suggested ordinance revisions as discussed. NEXT STEPS Staff will take the direction of the Committee. Potential options include: 1. Direct staff to visit City of Fresno and investigate Fresno’s Code Enforcement efforts on chronic vacant nuisance buildings and bring back suggested ordinance revisions. 2. Provide alternative direction to staff.