SYNOPSIS

 

Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission

 

January 18, 2006

 

 

 

 

ROLL CALL

 

The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Gore.

 

PRESENT:    Burns, Burruss, Coriano, Fowler, Gale, Gore, Hoag, Piatkowski, Shah,                                   Simon, Stivers.

ABSENT:       None.

 

APPROVAL OF ACTION SUMMARY SYNOPSIS

 

1.         a.         Synopsis – December 7, 2005 – Approved as submitted.

            b.         Synopsis – January 4, 2006 – Approved as submitted.

 

Citizens Comments

 

2.         Ron Emslie – Chair of Oak Park United Against Slumlords, addressed the Commission regarding continuing problems with junk cars at the intersection of Sumac and 16th Avenue.  He said he has been complaining to SHRA for at least a year now about this problem.

 

            Chair Gore responded that staff will follow up on this issue.

 

CONSENT CALENDAR

 

3.         Approval of Issuance of Tax-Exempt Bonds for Vintage at Natomas Field Apartments

 

            The Commission recommended approval of the issuance of the tax exempt bonds.  This matter is scheduled for the City Council on January 31, 2006.

 

4.         North Sacramento Redevelopment Area Tax Increment Fund Reprogramming

 

           The Commission recommended approval of the transfer of $783,051 from the

           North Sacramento Tax Increment Fund Development Assistance Account into

            the North Sacramento Commercial Loan Program.  This matter is scheduled for

            the City Council on January 31, 2006.

 

 

 

SHRC Synopsis

January 18, 2006

Page 2

 

 

Vote on Above Consent Items (#3 & #4):

 

AYES:             Burns, Burruss, Coriano, Fowler, Gale, Gore, Hoag, Piatkowski, Shah,            Simon, Stivers.

 

NOES:            None.

 

ABSENT:       None.

 

BUSINESS

 

5.         Disposition and Development Agreement:  Single Family Home at 4722 9th Avenue with Sacramento Neighborhood Housing Services

 

Cynthia Shallit, Management Analyst, introduced the item and provided the

Commission with a brief overview of the staff report.

 

The Commission recommended approval of the relocation of the single family home at

4722 9th Avenue to 3324 43rd Street and to approve a $110,000 grant for the project

costs.  This matter is scheduled for the City Council on February 28, 2006.

 

AYES:             Burns, Burruss, Fowler, Gale, Gore, Hoag, Piatkowski, Shah, Simon, Stivers.

 

NOES:            Coriano.

 

ABSENT:       None.

 

6.         Approval of Greenfair Development Exclusive Right to Negotiate (ERN) and Update on Redevelopment Activities

 

Emily Halcon, Housing Finance Analyst, introduced the item and said staff is seeking

the City’s approval of an Exclusive Right to Negotiate between the Agency and the

selected development team, Greenfair Village Partners, LLC.

 

Emily introduced the members of the Greenfair Village Partners (Marty Tuttle, Mark

 Friedman and John Dangberg).

 

Marty Tuttle briefly addressed the Commission and expressed his excitement about the

project.

 

Fernando Coriano expressed interest in attending one of the Visioning

meetings.  Emily Halcon explained that the Visioning meetings were held prior to

release of the RFQ, but that there would be community design meeting scheduled in the

future & that she would provide the Commission with information about the meetings.

 

Fernando Coriano requested a copy of the Visioning document.

SHRC Synopsis

January 18, 2006

Page 3

 

The Commission recommended approval  for Agency staff to seek approval from the

City for  the Exclusive Right to Negotiate between the Agency and Greenfair Village

Partners, LLC.   This matter is scheduled for the City Council on January 24, 2006.

 

AYES:             Burns, Burruss, Coriano, Fowler, Gale, Gore, Hoag, Piatkowski, Shah,            Simon, Stivers.

 

NOES:            None.

 

ABSENT:       None.

 

7.         Single Room Occupancy (SRO) “No Net Loss” Policy Analysis

 

 

Jim Hare, Development Services, said the Commission heard this item in December

2005 and since that time, staff has done more research and investigation on

 both regulated SROs and non-regulated SROs in Sacramento.

 

He discussed the City’s and the Agency’s obligations if an SRO goes off line.  He said

seven of the existing SROs in Sacramento contain 59 percent of all the SRO units that

are left (922 units) that have received Agency financing and are subject to regulatory

agreements (Attachment I in the staff report).   He said the regulatory agreements are

usually written to “run with the land” so that they survive any change of ownership or

any refinancing that occurs on the property, which represents some protection for the

SRO.  He recommended that any SRO policy that is developed should address what

the Agency’s response would be in the case of regulatory agreements expiring.  He said

the Agency could offer additional financing that would impose an additional regulatory

agreement and continue to assure long term availability.  He said another option would

be to check with the owner at the time the regulatory agreement expires to see if the

owner is still interested in the business of owning a SRO.  He discussed the Ridgeway

Hotel and the YWCA SROs that are in need of rehabilitation and financial restructuring,

and said that in some cases a 30-year regulatory agreement will not solve all the

problems especially when it pertains to a small SRO.

 

Jim also spoke to the issue of the Agency’s involvement in the closure of an SRO and

said it is to the tenants advantage in an existing SRO when the Agency is involved

in a SRO closure due to the increased protections for tenants versus what the City

offers if the Agency is not involved in the closure.  He said that although it is unlikely

that the Agency would initiate a SRO closure, its possible that we may a situation where

other broader redevelopment goals call for the Agency’s participation, & he mentioned

the Marshall Hotel as an example as it is now under new ownership. 

 

He said the real question is how the City of Sacramento should respond to the

continuing loss of SRO units.  He discussed the Agency’s existing approach to the loss

of SROs & then discussed what the City’s approach might be using a regulatory type of

tool.

 

 

SHRC Synopsis

January 18, 2006

Page 4

 

He said staff plans to compile all of the comments heard at tonight’s meeting and will

come back to the Commission at the first meeting in March with a strategy

recommendation that the Commission can then submit to the City Council for their

consideration.

 

Jim then introduced Alan Saunders, Senior Housing Finance Analyst (Development

Services), to summarize his visits to the non-regulated SRO units and to discuss his

research on preservation ordinances or “no net loss” ordinances that exist in other

cities.

 

Alan discussed the different types of ordinances and policies primarily used in California

and other west coast cities.  He said most of the municipalities are using an ordinance

with the exception of  Portland, Oregon which has adopted a very aggressive policy.  He

said most of the ordinances allow for a payment of cash in  lieu of a one-for-one

replacement but said most of them do not have a  solid ordinance when it comes to the

payment issue.  He said Portland has an aggressive policy that allows the City of

Portland to use whatever financial and regulatory means necessary to preserve the

existing SROs.  He said the policy requires that staff present an annual report to the

Commission on the progress they have made on the one-for-one replacement issue.   

 

Alan discussed the results of the survey that he perfomed on Sacramento’s  existing

non-regulated SROs in the downtown.  He said most SROs have been owned by the

same owners for several years, and that the SROs that seem to be the most successful

are those that have commercial uses on the ground floor of the complex.  He said most

of the owners he interviewed were not interested in selling their units.  He said the

majority of tenants in the SROs are long term tenants. 

 

Roy Fowler felt the San Diego and Portland examples were the better choices, rather

than San Francisco and he spoke about the Salt Lake City ordinance with a

recommendation that staff take a look at that ordinance.

 

Darin Gale asked about code enforcement for SROs.  Darin said he felt the Portland

policy is working because there is a financing commitment  by the City, and felt

that a similar type of financing arrangement should be recommend to the City Council.

 

Karolyn Simon said she thought there was already a “no net loss” City policy statement

in place. and that it was approved two to three years prior to completion of the

downtown library project.  Staff said more research needed to be done to see if such a

policy was ever created. 

 

Mark Stivers asked for some clarification about the Oakland SRO ordinance.

 

Fernando Coriano asked about the rate at which Sacramento is losing SROs.

 

There was continued discussion and questions of staff by the Commission members.

 

 

 

SHRC Synopsis

January 18, 2006

Page 5

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Ethan Evans, Sacramento Housing Alliance, supported a Zero Net Loss Policy &

Ordinance, not a policy (provided a handout to the Commission)

 

Scott Decker, SRO Collaborative Project, felt there is a need for an ordinance in

Sacramento due to what he perceives as a lack of political will in Sacramento to enforce

a SRO policy vs. an ordinance.

 

There was further discussion about how flexible services are provided  to occupants of

SROs and how the integration of these services would work in conjunction with transit

oriented development projects.  The issue of what percentage of SRO tenants are using

public transportation was also discussed.

 

William Greene, Sacramento Housing Alliance, supported a replacement ordinance.

 

Nancy Conk, Community Housing Opportunities Corporation, expressed support for

shared financial responsibility for replacement housing between the developer and the

owner of the property.

 

Mark Stivers said he felt Sacramento needs some type of replacement ordinance

and he expressed support for the Portland model since it puts the Agency in charge.

He suggested that Sacramento might want to include some of the SRO units already

lost as a part of a future goal.  He expressed support for a policy like Portland uses, but

with some responsibility for the developer and owner.

 

Darin Gale said he is not in favor of an ordinance, but a policy that would require a one-

for-one replacement.

 

Karolyn Simon spoke in support of an ordinance and said policies tend to get lost

in the minutes of a meeting, and that she felt an ordinance would be a more effective

tool.

 

Roy Fowler spoke in favor of an ordinance, but thought staff should look at developing a

conceptual draft that could then be incorporated into an ordinance.

 

Fernando Coriano felt an ordinance would be the most effective tool, but said he did not

want the ordinance to be retroactive.

 

Commission Action:

 

Mark Stivers moved that staff be directed to come back to the Commission with a

concept that incorporates some pieces of the Portland policy with clear direction

 provided to the Agency on these issues, with staff to report back on an annual basis to

the Commission and the City Council.  He proposed a one-for-one replacement

ordinance.   In areas where the Agency is involved in the project, the replacement

onus would be on the Agency as it is under current redevelopment law.  Where there

 

SHRC Synopsis

January 18, 2006

Page 6

 

would be no Agency obligation otherwise, he suggested some kind of shared

responsibility such as a 50/50 fee split between the developing entity and the City of

Sacramento for the replacement cost.

 

Karolyn Simon seconded the motion but asked for clarification about the annual report

back to the Commission and the City Council.  Karolyn then amended her second to the

motion to include a quarterly oral report from staff at the Commission in addition to staff

providing a written annual report.

 

Darin Gale said he was not comfortable with supporting a motion and suggested that

the Commission direct staff without the motion this evening.

 

Mark Stivers amended his original motion to remove the 50/50 fee arrangement

language and to leave the percentage figure blank until staff comes back to the

Commission in March 2006.

 

Mark Stivers also clarified the fee issue and said this would pertain only to those cases

where the Agency is not required under redevelopment law to replace the unit.

 

The Commission voted as follows:

 

AYES:             Burns, Burruss, Coriano, Fowler, Gore, Hoag, Piatkowski, Shah, Simon,         Stivers.

 

NOES:            Gale.

 

ABSENT:       None.

 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

 

a.         Anne said she would follow up on 16th Avenue & Sumac and report back to the Commission..

 

b.         Anne also said she would clarify the parking situation/restrictions in the SHRA underground parking lot.

 

c.         Anne introduced Patrick Bohner, Acting Director of Housing Management and Maintenance, who is taking Joe Gately’s place.  Anne said she will now be introducing staff members to the Commission at each Commission meeting.

 

d.         Events – Dyer Kelly-Greer Schools Sidewalk Project Celebration on 2/27.

                            NAHRO NORCAL Winter Conference Nevada Chapter on 2/5 to 2/7

 

Leslie Fritzsche of the City’s Economic Development department announced an

R Street Community Open House on Febuary 2 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. highlighting

activities along R Street from the Docks out to 29th Street in the new CalPers Atrium

building.

 

 

 

 

SHRC Synopsis

January 18, 2006

Page 7

 

 

ITEMS AND QUESTIONS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS

 

Mark Stivers asked about the Rental Housing Ordinance issue.  Anne said the Agency is participating in this issue since we are a “landlord.” 

 

Jim Hoag asked about the status of Riverview Plaza.

 

Christine Weichert of Development Services said the Agency has engaged a consultant to assist with the scope of work & to look at the tax credits and bonds issues associated with the refinancing of the building.  Staff expects to see the financing in place within the next year and project completion in the following year.

 

Sam Burns asked about the status of the new deli in the Riverview Plaza building.

 

Sheryl Patterson of the Legal Department said the prospective tenant has hired a contractor, and that staff would come back to the Commission on this item.

 

As there was no further business to be conducted, the meeting was adjourned at

7:50 p.m.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                __________________________

                                                                                                NANCY R. ABEELS

                                                                                                Agency Clerk