SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Oak Park
Redevelopment Advisory Committee
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
6:30 PM
Oak Park Community Center
3524 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
*These meeting
minutes are unapproved. The Oak Park RAC
will take action on the minutes at the September 14th RAC meeting.
I. Call to Order
Committee Chairperson, Edenausegboye Davis, called the meeting to order at 6:35 pm.
II. Roll Call
Committee Secretary, Linda McDonald, conducted roll call.
Present: Bud Aungst, Kim Curry-Evans, Edenausegboye Davis, Chris Ganson, Edgar Hilbert, Mary Lou Lackey, Linda McDonald, Sandy Redmond, Eric Straub, James Taylor, Rose Thomas
Absent: Nou Lor
Staff
Present:
III. Welcoming Remarks
Edenausegboye Davis welcomed members of the community. She reviewed procedures with regard to speakers being recognized by the chair, members raising their hands, the use of speaker cards and the 3-minute limit for speakers from the public.
IV. Approval of the March 11, 2005 RAC Meeting Minutes
There was a misspelling on page 4 of the handouts, paragraph 7, “funds could be used in other parts of Oak Park,” The minutes were approved unanimously, as amended.
V. Redevelopment Items
A. Oak Park Redevelopment Plan One-Year Extension –
Following the approval of the 2004-05 State budget, the legislature shifted $250 million in funds from local governments to the State. For the City and County of Sacramento, the burden is approximately $2.5 million over two years and includes Oak Park Redevelopment funds. SB 1096 acknowledges this burden and lessens the impact by allowing each redevelopment area to receive an additional year of tax increment funding and an additional year to repay indebtedness. The plan was amended for a one-year extension for Fiscal Year 2005 and can be extended for an additional year this year because the Redevelopment Agency will be making an ERAF payment.
Public member Emslie voiced support for the extension.
The RAC approved the one-year extension unanimously.
B. Oak Park Draft Design
Guidelines – Pooja Singh, EDAW
The Draft Design Guidelines have been reviewed in public meetings, the last one being in Oak Park in February of 2004. The current draft is comprehensive, combining several existing guidelines. Ms. Singh made a presentation of the main elements of the publication and answered questions.
This meeting was intended to be the
next public meeting. However, members of the RAC and the public requested that
the public receive copies of the draft and additional time for review. RAC
members were disappointed that a separate meeting had not been scheduled in an
open forum.
Comments: 12th and 14th “Streets” should be labeled “Avenues”. There were questions about the use of flexible language such as “should, discouraged and recommended” versus “required, must, shall.” Singh responded that there will be some flexibility for the planners based on the character and historic nature of individual neighborhoods. The recommendation for trees should be large or maximum size trees.
There were no examples of alleys, where the garage is at the back of the lot. Singh noted that they are addressed in the parking section and those type of garages are ideal. They just happened to use an example where the garage is beside the house.
Public member White commented that 1. There is too much about Del Paso and other areas and Oak Park is being shortchanged; 2. Small lots are a problem and there are many of them in Oak Park; 3. Currently, a lot of junky houses are being built – also some with upstairs apartments, which can be a problem for seniors; 4. Snout houses should be an option for small lots.
Public member Roberts commented that she attended the February meeting and the design and materials at Starbucks were criticized. She did not think that a photo of Starbucks should be featured in the document. We should stick to the current scale of 1-2 stories, not 3 stories. How will we deal with grandfathered properties that don’t comply with the guidelines?
Public member Armstrong commented that he is a developer and that the scale of buildings should match, however, on a small 40X60’ lot, you can only do two-story because one-story would only be 700 square feet. The materials and style can match, but two-story makes better use of square footage. There are zoning issues such as setbacks from the street and sides of the lot.
Public member Emslie commented that he owns a home and a new home built nearby is 1400 square feet is horrible and looks like a billboard. There is no parking. He is against giant homes on small lots without parking. He also does not like the materials used at the Starbucks on Broadway.
Public member McKeithern commented that she and other members of the public should have received a draft to review prior to the meeting.
C. Donner Field Development Site –
This is the first presentation of several that the RAC will receive with regard to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for the Donner Field project. The key elements are single family homes, designed with sensitivity to the neighborhood, to be built with minimum Agency involvement. There were 8 proposals in the RFP process and Sacramento Mutual Housing (SMH) was chosen.
Rachel Iskow, SMH, explained that SMH is a non-profit based in Oak Park, with a primary goal of stabilizing communities. Currently they are housing 2400 residents and focusing on building and renovating on problem properties. Examples of their recent projects include 600 Lemon Hill Ave. and 1075 Dixie Ave. in North Sacramento. SMH is involved in leadership development, mentoring multi-cultural youth and adults. Their housing projects include on-site services such as learning labs, after school programs, safety programs, asset building, and homeownership education and funding.
In the past, they specialized in rental and multi-family housing. However, they have changed to a new focus on homeownership.
Irene Jenkins, SMH Director of Housing Development spoke about the Donner Field preliminary design. The lots are small – 16-1800 square feet. The streetscape fits into the neighborhood. There are two-car “tandem” garages, and porches. The goal is to build and sell to low to middle income purchasers (80% of median income), and to offer down payment assistance. The purchase price for 1.25 acres is estimated at $500,000; however SMH will pay the market rate based on an appraisal. There will be considerable expense for rezoning, a general plan amendment, a subdivision map and more.
Straub noted that it will be difficult to change behavior in using “tandem” garages. There were several comments about insufficient parking, the enforcement problem in preventing parking over the sidewalk, and the limited parking in the neighborhood. Ganson expressed the support for limited parking to encourage alternative transportation.
Aungst noted that the lots are very small. Jenkins confirmed that they range from 52X 32’ to 52X36’. Aungst also asked about any guarantee that the housing would remain affordable. Iskow offered to work with the community if they want to make them permanently affordable. Jenkins explained restrictions on resale and a requirement to repay loans from the assistance program. This is not equity sharing.
Rose Marie Colbert, SMH, explained the organization’s involvement in savings programs sponsored by the Valley Initiative for Developing Assets (VIDA). The programs include first-time home ownership, college or job training and small business development.
Ganson voiced support for SMH working with the community and would like to see porches that can be used for seating. Lackey and Straub would like to see more information about this type of low-moderate income home ownership developments so that we have models or examples to compare. There will be a homeowners association responsible for open space maintenance, possibly front yard landscaping and other Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Public member White commented that there are too many units. There is not enough parking and he would like to see snout houses with a 2-3 car garages.
Jenkins noted that the project is not a profit-making venture and they will only get a modest developer fee.
Public member McKeithern commented that there are too many homes; the lots are too small with no room to do anything like a barbeque, garden or swimming pool. The plan is too dense and it is not good.
Public member Armstrong asked whether Oak Park residents could be targeted for homeownership here. Jenkins responded that they could conduct outreach but not discriminate. This item will return at future RAC meetings for further comment.
This property is on the Northwest corner of 35th and Broadway and was recently purchased by SHRA. There has been a previous discussion of a possible urban plaza; however, SHRA is seeking input on the options for that property. Currently there is a vacant warehouse across the street, but there are plans for a multi-use development. RAC members expressed a variety of opinions, many did not favor a place for people to “hang out” or loiter. Others would like to see a plaza or gathering place that is a benefit to the community, with a good open design. Many expressed the opinion that it may be best to develop a plaza after there are more new developments surrounding it. Others would like to see a Bistro or small restaurant, public art and a focal point for the neighborhood.
E. Oak Park Redevelopment Area Project Updates
–
1. The Regent Project for Stockton Boulevard was approved by the Redevelopment Commission. It will go before the City Council at 2:00 on August 23rd.
2. Bids are being taken for the 4Th Avenue Lofts project. Construction should begin in mid-September to late October. Several buyers have been pre-approved.
3. Washington Market is in negotiations for purchase and SHRA has heard nothing from Day’s Market.
4. Rebuilding Together is focusing on projects in South Oak Park on October 22nd, working with 40 low income homeowners to complete makeovers. There will be a ceremony in Temple Park. The city and SHRA will each sponsor a house with volunteers.
5. SHRA is currently receiving budget estimates based on a bond issuance. Oak Park is in line for 15-25 million in bond funds and the RAC will work with the community to prioritize projects.
VI. Informational Items
None
VII. Communication from RAC Members and Public on Items Not on the Agenda
A. Hilbert announced a meeting of ACORN.
B. McDonald announced that spraying for West Nile Virus would commence on Thursday, August 11th in Oak Park.
C. The public is invited to the Oak Park Summer Concert Series – there will be a Gospel Concert
C. Ron Emslie supported the formation of a sub-committee from the RAC to help discourage ugly houses. It cost him $179 to appeal a proposal before the design review committee.
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 PM.