Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency
|
Meeting Minutes Little Theater 6879 14th Avenue, Sacramento, CA |
I.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to
order by Vice-chairman Steven R. Jones at approximately 6:05 p.m.
II.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was conducted.
RAC Members Present: Mel Billingsley, Chandra Clady, Steve Jones, Gary
Little, Betty Lopez, Marcia Maleske, Maggie O’Mara, Scott Rasmussen, Dave
Sikich, Linda Shafer, J.D. Stack, Christopher Wilson
RAC Members Absent: Matthew Altier, Taiwo Jaiyeoba,
Staff Present: Lisa Bates, Chris Pahule and Gregory Ptucha (all with SHRA)
III.
INTRODUCTIONS
Lisa Bates, SHRA City
Community Development Director, introduced Redevelopment Manager Chris Pahule
and new RAC staff Gregory Ptucha.
Members in attendance introduced themselves.
IV.
APPROVAL OF July 7, 2005 RAC
MEETING MINUTES
The minutes were approved by
a unanimous vote on a motion by Mr. Stack and seconded by Mr. Little. (Note: Later in the meeting, Ms. Clady asked
the board to revisit the approval of minutes.
In particular, she noted that the minutes did not discuss a petition
presented at the July meeting concerning the Jefferson Lofts apartments. Ms. Clady asked that the minutes be approved
on the condition that note of the petition be entered into the record. A motion to that effect was made by Mr. Billingsly
and seconded by Ms. O’Mara. It passed
unanimously.)
V.
REDEVELOPMENT ITEMS
A.
Officer Elections – Action Item
Mr. Jones asked for confirmation about voting
procedures. Staff Greg Ptucha noted that
SHRA’s Chief Legal Counsel has advised that voting cannot be conducted by secret
ballot, but rather must be a matter of public record.
By individual position, Mr. Jones called for nominations
for RAC officers. Names were put into
nomination with some persons declining.
Nominations were then closed after unanimous approval of a
motion made by Mr. Little and seconded by Mr. Rasmussen.
Mr. Jones then conducted the vote by a “show-of-hands” for
each position. Results were as follows,
with those elected demarked by an asterisk.
Chairperson Vice-chairperson Secretary
Billingsly 5 *Sikich 6 *Rasmussen 8
*Stack 6 Little 5 O’Mara 4
B.
Grant Funding Opportunities –
Informational Item
Mr. Jones introduced Mr. Ed Cox of the City of
Sacramento Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Cox explained that his
position concentrates on creation of alternative transportation modes to reduce
reliance on automobile transportation.
Ms. Bates then provided background on the purpose for inviting Mr. Cox,
i.e., to help the RAC understand the potential sources of grant funds for which
projects might be eligible. In addition,
it was hoped that the RAC could learn about the review and evaluation process
leading to decisions on grant-funding.
Mr. Cox described four potential sources of funds from
the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG):
1. Bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects.
2. Air quality improvement projects
3. Community design projects.
4. Transportation demand management projects.
Mr. Cox identified bicycle/pedestrian and community design
funding as the two grant sources the City of Sacramento is currently targeting,
as the other two sources were unlikely to be awarded to the City or involved
relatively small grants.
Total SACOG bicycle/pedestrian project funding could
range from $3 million to $8 million, with it assumed that actual grant awards
would likely total at the lower end of that range. A September announcement described individual
grants would be awarded in amounts of $300,000 to $500,000. Given the likely size of an award, the City
plans to nominate a single project, a bicycle/pedestrian bridge that would
cross Interstate 80 to connect South Natomas and North Natomas Grant applications are due November 1, 2005.
The Community Design project grants would total $12
million--$3 million of which would be allocated for planning activities and $9
million to capital improvement projects.
The strategy is to seek grant funds that can be used on projects that
would leverage broader development objectives. The City is engaged in an
internal process to evaluate five or six
“candidate” projects so a short-list can be selected for submission to
SACOG. Two possible projects within the
redevelopment area are under consideration: (1) the 65th Street
Circulation Plan/Transit Village Plan Amendment, and, (2) Redding Avenue
improvements. The circulation plan would
apply for the “planning” grant funds, while the Redding Avenue improvements
would seek the capital improvement grant funds.
The scope of the circulation plan update may include study of an
alternative vehicle/transit/pedestrian/bicycle entryway to Sacramento State
University campus from 65th Street (the tunnel option) and how
Ramona Avenue would need to be improved to connect the university with the
faculty village it plans to construct on the grounds of the now-closed
California Youth Authority campus. Since
the university now favors bus rapid transit over a rail trolley campus
circulator, this would also be included in the circulation plan update. Formal applications to SACOG are due in
January 2006.
Mr. Cox then described additional grant sources,
including the California Bike Transportation Account. This funding source has been reduced to $5
million from $7 million. Eligible uses
include bike path development. To be
considered, projects need to have the requisite environmental reviews and
clearances completed before submission.
The City has two current projects it plans to submit: a Natomas bikeway
and the Two Rivers Bikeway.
Mr. Cox noted that, in May 2006, a funding cycle will
begin for grants intended to improve bicycle paths leading to schools. The City has not identified any projects to
submit at this time. There was
discussion about whether Redding Avenue improvements might qualify if the bike
path is primarily a connection for students attending Sacramento State
University.
With regards to Redding Avenue, Ms. O’Mara asked staff
to determine why the developer of the Verge (formerly Jefferson Commons) was
permitted to go forward without dedicating the right-of-way needed to improve
Redding to comply with City standards and to accommodate the plan for bike
lanes, curbs and gutters on Redding. In
reaction, Mr. Cox described how these dedications and privately-funded
improvements are accounted for as a “Facilities Benefit Assessment” that can be
used as a local match for outside grant funds.
Further discussion was generated about prioritization
by the RAC of various projects discussed during 2005, and no confirmation about
possible sources for local matching funds (if required to receive specific
grants). Ms. Bates suggested a
three-month process during which the RAC would prioritize projects. This process would help facilitate refinement
of a financing strategy.
Mr. Cox offered to share a
web link that will allow interested parties access to bikeway maps. He then began description of planning
underway to improve the Highway 50/65th Street interchange. The scope of study is between the on/off
ramps to the south and north of Highway 50.
The objective is to improve pedestrian and bicycle movements on 65th
Street. A primary means for achieving
this objective would involve modification of Highway 50 ramps to slow traffic
at the point where pedestrians cross the ramps.
Mr. Billingsly suggested that
the scope of the project be expanded to include reduction of two vehicle lanes
on 65th Street from Highway 50 south to 14th Avenue. This would allow for installation of bike
lanes and sidewalks. Ms. O’Mara was
supportive and mentioned how reduction of lanes can actually improve traffic
flow if designed correctly. She asked
for a presentation about how this concept has worked in other locations. Mr. Billingsly suggested that all RAC members
walk 65th Street from 14th Avenue to Highway 50 to
appreciate the current, undesirable circumstances. Ms. Clady expressed concern about how a
narrowed 65th might increase traffic “spillage” onto neighboring
side streets, and how a “systems” approach was needed to avoid transferring
existing problems onto nearby residential streets.
Discussion
included a suggestion that bus stop “pull-outs” be created out of traffic lanes
that might be abandoned. Staff was asked
to invite representative(s) from City DOT to the November meeting to discuss the
feasibility of including this component into the scope of the Highway 50/65th
Street project. Other comments included
questions about streetscaping on Q Street and the need to coordinate these
projects with Sacramento State University and its campus master plan. Ms. Bates
also noted that the City’s current General Plan update is considering multiple
mode transportation options. Given all
the transportation planning activity underway in this area, the challenge is to
define the appropriate scope of work for the 65th Street Circulation
Plan revisions. It was suggested that
“regionalism” be the overarching theme for this planning. Mr. Billingsly suggested that all key
agencies be invited to the RAC, including Regional Transit, Sacramento State
University, DOT and Sacramento Department of Utilities.
C.
65th Street
Station Block Update
Lisa Bates described how the
consultant team has produced a first draft report on the “Station Block.” She reminded those present of the team’s composition:
Leland Consulting Group as lead, with Fletcher Farr Ayotte, architects and
Nelson/Nygaard Associates, transportation planners. She revisited the physical boundaries of the
Station Block and adjacent parcels. Ms.
Bates said that, early-on, the team identified circulation issues surrounding
the site as obstacles that must be overcome to allow redevelopment of the
Station Block to its maximum potential as a pedestrian/transit-friendly
project. As a result, the team
recommended research into the feasibility of creating a new major entry into
the Sacramento State campus from 65th Street and Elvas Avenue by
tunneling under the Union Pacific Rail Road.
If feasible, Sacramento State’s campus master plan would need to be
revised. This would also allow Folsom
Boulevard improvements to limit increases in traffic lanes, since
university-bound traffic would be largely diverted to a new 65th/Elvas
entry. Ms. Bates mentioned that a
short-term feasibility study on the tunnel option was recently begun. The draft Station Block report
recommendations will be discussed in greater detail at the RAC’s November
meeting, but the tunnel feasibility study will not be complete until later in
November.
D.
Redevelopment Area Update
1. It was noted that “Sparky”
Harris has become a transportation planner with the City of Sacramento.
2. If SACOG choose to not fund
the 65th Street Circulation Plan update, tax increment funds may be
needed for this purpose.
3. Mr. Billingsly indicated
that District 3 Council member Steve Cohn has expressed a desire that Folsom
Boulevard near 65th be designed to more closely resemble how Folsom
looks and functions west of 55th Street.
4. The Department of Utilities
continues to plan for the acquisition of land needed for the proposed detention
basin.
5. Jackson Properties is
reported to have a new development proposal for the “Barn” site that involves
development of a hotel complex with meeting and conference space.
6. Mr. Stack noted that the 13-acre
site owned by the developers of Jefferson Commons is reported to be on the
market. Mr. Rasmussen indicated that the
property may be under a purchase-and-sale agreement.
7. Mr. Billingsly requested
staff to contact Target corporate representatives to learn the status of the
former Golden One site.
8. The public notice for the
Friedman Transit Village distributed at the meeting was described as a dispute
about whether the developer should be compensated for dedication of public
right-of-way that was part of the City’s approval of the recently-completed
project.
9. Mr. Wilson asked staff to
investigate the rehabilitation work underway at the commercial/retail parcel at
the northwest corner of 65th and Broadway. There was related discussion about when
rehabilitation is substantial enough to prompt a reassessment for tax
purposes.
10. Mr. Billingsly asked for a
running list of projects in-progress and the potential tax increment they would
generate.
11. Mr. Little described the
chronic problem of illegal parking on Elvas Avenue next to University
Garage. Potential remedies included
repeated code enforcement/ticket issuance as well as streetscape improvements
that would minimize the ability to illegally park. Dialogue is needed with Council member Cohn
and City Code Enforcement.
12. It was noted that the RAC
should be updated on the university’s plans for development of a faculty
village on Ramona Avenue. An update
should include the transportation issues to be resolved.
VI.
COMMUNICATION FROM RAC
MEMBERS AND PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
An audience member noted
that a 1.8 acre land parcel controlled by his family would soon be released
from probate and then be listed for sale.
It is located next to the Fong & Fong warehouse.
VII.
ADJOURNMENT