Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Building Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eureka council introduces vacant‑building ordinance, tables item after questions over scope and enforcement
Summary
The council reviewed a proposed Vacant Building Ordinance (Bill 1038‑CS). Staff presented the draft but council members raised concerns about vague standards, multi‑unit definitions and fees; after public comment the council voted 3‑0 to table the ordinance to allow staff to address issues and include absent members in deliberations.
The Eureka City Council introduced a proposed Vacant Building Ordinance (Bill 1038‑CS) on Aug. 6 and then voted to table the measure to the next meeting for further review.
City Attorney Luna described the ordinance as a staff‑developed, seven‑page tool reviewed by public safety, public works and the economic development commission. Luna said the ordinance is intended to give code‑enforcement staff a mechanism to address buildings vacant for extended periods while preserving due‑process protections.
Council members questioned several elements. Council member Contreras DeLoach pressed whether subjective language—phrases such as "maintenance" and "finishes in good condition"—could create enforcement ambiguity or legal risk; Luna said discretion is inherent to enforcement work and he did not believe the draft was impermissibly vague. Council members also asked how the city would define "vacant" for multi‑unit properties and commercial parcels; staff said definitions could draw on other parts of the municipal code and that further clarifications could be developed before adoption.
On penalties and incentives, Luna said the ordinance functions as the "stick" and that any incentives ("carrots") should be handled outside the ordinance, noting the city already offers facade and CPTED grants. City staff and the city manager said vacant‑building monitoring fees already exist and that fee amounts would be set later in a fee schedule.
Public comment included commercial‑property owner Scott Pesch, who urged the council to avoid penalizing owners who are actively marketing or rehabbing space. After council discussion and an invitation from Luna to refine language behind the scenes, Council member Contreras DeLoach moved to table the ordinance to the next meeting; Council member Fernandez seconded. The motion passed with three yes votes; the ordinance will return with clarifications and possible objective standards for enforcement.
Because this meeting was an introduction, no final action to adopt the ordinance occurred; the item was tabled for further staff work and additional council consideration.
