Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

65^th STREET

REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Meeting Minutes

Thursday, December 1, 2005

6:00 P.M.

Hiram Johnson High School

Little Theater

6879 14^th Avenue, Sacramento, CA

I. CALL TO ORDER

Vice Chairperson David Sikich observed that a quorum had not been achieved. He called to order an information-only meeting beginning at 6:15 p.m. RAC members in attendance asked the executive committee to review RAC policies and any applicable city ordinances to determine how to best deal with chronic absenteeism by a few RAC members. As a point of information, Greg Ptucha reported that the only vacant RAC position—that being a standing seat on the RAC reserved to Associated Students, Inc.—may be filled in the near future.

II. ROLL CALL

Roll call was conducted for the information-only meeting.

RAC Members Present: Mel Billingsley, Chandra Clady, Steve Jones, Gary Little, Marcia Maleske, Scott Rasmussen, Dave Sikich

RAC Members Absent: Matthew Altier, Taiwo Jaiyeoba, Betty Lopez, Maggie O’Mara, Linda Shafer, J.D. Stack, Christopher Wilson

Staff Present: Chris Pahule and Gregory Ptucha (both SHRA)

III. INTRODUCTIONS

Vice Chairperson Sikich welcomed those in attendance. Audience members introduced themselves.

IV. APPROVAL OF November 3, 2005 RAC MEETING MINUTES

A number of corrections to the November meeting minutes were suggested by Mr. Billingsley and there was consensus that the changes would be appropriate. The changes related to the following: 1.) water runoff patterns; 2) Oak Park combined sewer system improvement plans; 3.) narrowing 65th Street between 14^th Avenue and Folsom Blvd; 4.) Target Corp. development plans; and 5.) development plans for the site south of light rail and east of 65^th Street. Ms. Clady pointed out a needed spelling correction. Since there was not a quorum, formal approval will be deferred to the January 2006 meeting.

V. REDEVELOPMENT ITEMS (Summarized in the order items were discussed)

A. Utility Infrastructure Improvements Draft Memorandum of Understanding

Redevelopment Manager Chris Pahule described how the planned presentation of business terms of a proposed memorandum of understanding between SHRA and the city’s Department of Utilities needed to be postponed. Discussions between the parties have not been completed. However, Mr. Pahule offered the following information about planning for a new detention basin to serve the area:

1. The Department of Utilities is seeking authority from the City Council to submit a $4,000,000 loan application to the California Infrastructure Bank (“I-Bank”) to finance development of what is called the “65^th Street and Broadway Detention Basin Project” (PN:WJ76). This request is on the council’s December 13, 2006 agenda.

2. Also at the December 13^th meeting, City Council will be asked to pass a “resolution of necessity” (RON) that allows the beginning of a non-voluntary acquisition by the City of two parcels needed for the preferred site of the new detention basin. The RON is needed when, as in this case, the city and the private owner(s) have reached an impasse in their discussions about terms and conditions of a voluntary sale.

Pahule described tentative plans for SHRA to repay the I-Bank loan from future tax increment proceeds, with Utilities funding related future improvements to the combined sewer system that services the 65^th Street/Folsom area. There was a mention of planning for the detention basin going back a number of years, with the earlier plans for the cost to be borne directly by the Department of Utilities. Some questioned why tax increment funds should be used for this purpose. Mr. Pahule explained that the Department of Utilities lacks sufficient funds to develop the detention basin and combined sewer system improvements, so SHRA was prepared to assist in exchange for sewer system capacity that would facilitate future desirable private developments. In anticipation that terms of an agreement would be completed soon, Mr. Pahule forecast a follow-up presentation at the RAC’s January meeting.

There was related discussion about use of permeable paving materials that would minimize storm water runoff and questions about what was required of Jefferson Commons when it was constructed.

C. Transportation Planning – 65^th Street Tunnel Feasibility Study

Redevelopment Manager Chris Pahule described how the feasibility study by consultant Mark Thomas and Company was nearly complete, but not yet ready to a detailed presentation to the RAC. Preliminary results indicate that the greatest challenge to feasibility would be the type of flood control method used in conjunction with a tunnel. Alternative methods include additional levees or unusually large flood gates. It is expected that the study will be completed in December. A formal presentation by the city’s Department of Transportation and/or the consultant would be scheduled for the January meeting.

E. Redevelopment Area Update

Gregory Ptucha reported on the following:

1. New Valuations from County Assessor

Base Year assessment of $151,473,728 compares with new ‘05/’06 valuation of $204,429,305. Gross increase in valuations is $ 52,955,577. Chris Pahule pointed out that various taxing districts will receive portions of the increased revenues generated by the higher valuation, and that the net amount of increased valuation and the tax increment funds to be available for use in the redevelopment area has not been determined. Pahule summarized debt that future tax increment would have to repay, including expenses incurred during the plan adoption process, as well as a $550,000 advance to the district from SHRA. These obligations total about $750,000. Mel Billingsley asked staff to develop and update a table that would provide a summary for the RAC of monies available and expenses incurred and/or funds obligated for specific projects.

2. (13.5) Acre site update

Staff reported that title to the real estate is not held by William Lyon Homes, as was reported at the November RAC meeting. City Planning staff believes ownership to be held by JPI of Texas (developers of Jefferson Commons), whereas “Metroscan” records show title to be held by a revocable family trust connected with Dorris Lumber.

City Planning staff said that proposals are being solicited in order to make a decision on disposition of the property. A decision was planned for early December. William Lyon and a second local housing developer are the only prospective buyers that have approached the City’s Planning Department to discuss entitlement issues.

3. Condominium proposal

A pre-application meeting was held at the Planning Department on November 17 concerning a site fronting on Redding Avenue adjacent to the site of the proposed detention basin. The concept discussed involves construction of seven freestanding buildings that would contain a total of 14 condo/townhomes. The concept would require a lot merger and a re-zone from R-1 (Single Family) to R1-A (Single Family Alternative Zone).

According to the lead city planner, staff reaction was generally favorable. However, significant issues include private versus public street designations and street width. The proposal calls for 31-foot private streets. If the streets were dedicated, city standards would require a 40-foot width. These would allow curbside parking. A potential benefit of dedication is that Homeowner Association fees and reserves to maintain the private streets and utilities might be onerous.

The sponsor was also informed of plans to increase width of Redding Avenue to 71-feet for planned bike lanes, gutters, divided sidewalks, etc. As a result, sponsor has to determine how much of their land would have to be dedicated to Redding expansion and impact that has on unit layout.

The development would abut new detention basin/passive park, Verge and single family units to the south. It was suggested that developers would benefit from having the opportunity to present their early proposals to the RAC, even if the concepts are not fully-refined.

4. Code Enforcement

Regarding University Garage, it was reported that city Code Enforcement determined that the violations constitute a public nuisance. They filed a new case on November 22, 2005. The garage owner has thirty days from November 22 to either correct the violations or to appeal the circumstances to a city hearing examiner.

The owner has been cited with six violations, generally involving unauthorized parking of inoperable vehicles on public property; also, visual blight from the storage of wrecked or inoperable vehicles on private property that has not been screened from public view.

The garage owner asserts his intent to eliminate the violations. Evidence of this intent will be the submission of plans to the city’s Planning Dept. within thirty days that show how the property and garage operations will be brought into compliance. Staff will monitor the case and its resolution.

5. Target

Staff contacted Mr. John Dewes at Target’s Minneapolis headquarters. Mr. Dewes stated that he is waiting for a development proposal from Target’s west coast regional real estate manager. Until received and approved by headquarters, they have nothing to show local planners, elected officials or the RAC.

6. Hotels Proposal

Nothing new to report since the October 25, 2005 pre-application meeting at City Hall. Staff attempted without success to get an update from city Planning staff or from property owner Jackson Properties prior to the RAC meeting.

7. RAC 2006 Meeting Schedule and Location

There was informal consensus that the RAC should continue to meet on the first Thursday of each month beginning at 6:00 p.m. Greg Ptucha reported that Chairperson J.D. Stack will attempt to reserve use of the “Rubicon” meeting room at the SMUD headquarters building for RAC meetings.

8. Agenda Distribution

To better manage the time and expense of agenda distribution, a notice will be mailed to those currently receiving meeting notices/agendas that, beginning with the February 2006 meeting, distribution will be primarily by e-mail unless individuals make a specific request for receipt via U.S. mail. E-mail addresses are requested by the notice, and it also describes how agendas are posted to the SHRA web site.

B. Transportation Planning – 65^th Street / Highway 50 Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements

Ed Cox of the city’s Department of Transportation (DOT) described the project, which seeks to analyze options and identify physical changes to 65^th Street that will improve pedestrian and bicycle movements through the study area. The study area is 65^th between the light rail tracks on the north and Broadway on the south. Mr. Cox presented slides that included sequential photographs of the west side and east side of 65^th Street. Obstacles to pedestrian and bicycle movement were shown. Mr. Billingsley pointed to the frequency of curb cuts as a major obstacle to overcome. Lack of crosswalks linking certain street corners is another impediment to pedestrians.

Mr. Cox indicated that DOT is seeking to determine if the following can be included in a possible solution:

a.) Reconfigured entrance ramps onto Highway 50 that would create more severe turning movements and cause vehicles to enter the ramps at a much slower speed;

b.) Shorter crosswalks and safety islands where pedestrians can wait while trying to traverse the entrance/exit ramps;

c.) Narrower vehicle lanes, ranging from ten-to-eleven feet in width, allowing room for the development of bicycle lanes and separated sidewalks;

d.) Rolled curbs would be replaced by standard vertical curbs.

Mr. Cox said one component of a possible solution would involve development of a new northbound lane on 65^th to ease congestion of traffic seeking to enter eastbound Highway 50. He also noted a planned, future third southbound lane on 65^th between Folsom Boulevard and the light rail tracks on land dedicated by the “F/65” developer for this purpose. The proposed northbound lane is a mitigation measure in the Southeast Area Transportation Study (SEATS) that resulted from the development of Granite Park office complex on Power Inn Road. Cox is under the impression that much of the land needed to add another northbound lane is already owned by the city. Chris Pahule suggested that any proposed vehicle lanes should be considered only in the broader context of the planned circulation study for the 65^th Street area. Recommendations of the planned study might not support these proposals, since they may conflict with the objectives of Transit Village development.

It was suggested that street trees be included—especially ones that would develop a reasonable girth and height. There was speculation about whether narrower vehicle lanes would cause speeds to decrease. Steven Jones inquired about any similar projects locally or elsewhere, but Mr. Cox was not aware of any. The potential for “through” traffic to seek shortcuts and overflow onto neighborhood streets was discussed.

Mr. Cox noted how any solution would require the cooperation of the state’s department of transportation (Caltrans), which has jurisdiction of the Highway 50 interchange with 65^th Street. No funds for engineering design and/or construction have been identified. If the Caltrans’ proposal for new “high occupancy vehicle” (HOV) lanes is pursued, funds might be available to the 65^th Street work as a “community enhancement” project.

Mr. Cox said the scope of work of this project is expected to be complete by the end of December. The report will include cost estimates. When asked about the opportunity to provide comments, Mr. Cox speculated that the report would be presented to the Planning Commission, but this needs to be confirmed with Mr. Ryan Moore of DOT, the project manager.

C. Matching Funds Request for Community Design Planning Grant Application

Chris Pahule elaborated on a memorandum included in the meeting packet dated November 23, 2005, concerning the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and the $12 million in funding that is available through SACOG’s Community Design Funding Program. The program provides grants to local government agencies and their partners for planning and capital improvements that support the SACOG's “Blueprint” principles, i.e., transportation choices; housing diversity; compact development; mixed land uses; use of existing assets; natural resource protection; and, quality design. Additional evaluation criteria include: whether proposals are likely to be implemented if approved; do they have stakeholder support; and, do they leverage private investment.

The City of Sacramento Department of Transportation (DOT) has been reviewing proposals for applications that might be submitted for the Community Design grants. Two proposals that have been “short-listed” are in the 65^th Street Redevelopment Area, including a $1 million dollar request to revise and update the 65^th Street Transit Village Plan the 65^th Street Circulation Study; and a $3 million request for planning and physical improvements to Redding Avenue that would enhance pedestrian and bicycle transportation modes.

Mr. Pahule explained that revisiting the circulation study is necessary since there are significant flaws to earlier analysis and since the SEATS study and other, earlier mitigation measures for projects such as Granite Park are in conflict with the 65^th Street plans. Much of the circulation plan budget would be used for supplemental environmental impact analysis, and that the Redding monies would pay for engineering, design plans and construction.

There was discussion about whether this would be a valuable use of tax increment funds, and whether proposed projects for the area are consistent with the adopted objectives of transit village development. In response to a question, Pahule stated that, if either or both proposals were funded, the work would be pursued by private consultants and/or designers who would be selected using a “request for proposals” process. The teams doing the work would be supervised by DOT managers.

DOT is currently reviewing its tentative rankings with members of the City Council. DOT recommendations to Council are scheduled for December 13, 2006. The council will choose which applications are to be submitted to SACOG by the January 12, 2006 deadline. If the 65^th Street projects were selected, local funds are needed to comply with SACOG’s grant requirement that its funds be matched at a ratio of 11.47%. If the Transit Village/Circulation Plan grant were approved in-full, an $114,700 match would be needed. If Redding Avenue were approved in-full, a $344,100 match would be required. Since no action could be taken without a quorum, staff recommended that, at its January meeting, the RAC consider formal approval, in concept, of the use of 65^th Street tax increment funds for purposes of the local match for the grant applications. RAC member comments included a desire, in the future, to be informed about all possible projects within the redevelopment area prior to “short-listing” by city and/or agency staff.

VI. COMMUNICATION FROM RAC MEMBERS AND PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

Intentionally blank.

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Vice-chairman Sikich informally adjourned the meeting at 7:55p.m.