SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

 

Oak Park

Redevelopment Advisory Committee

Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, December 14, 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 January 11th RAC meeting.

 

I.          Call to Order

Committee Chairperson, Edenausegboye Davis, called the meeting to order at 6:42 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,

            Absent: Eric Straub, James Taylor, Rose Thomas

            Staff Present: Chris Pahule, Erika Bumgardner

 

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 November 9, 2005 RAC Meeting Minutes

            The minutes were approved unanimously.

 

V.        Redevelopment Items

           

A. Appointment of Oak Park RAC Representative to the MLK/Broadway Steering Committee – Erika Bumgardner, SHRA

The MLK/Broadway project has been a long, deliberative process. A.F. Evans has moved forward rapidly and intends to hold 1-2 meetings per month. Included on the committee will be one community member (appointed by council member Hammond’s office) and a member of the RAC. The first meeting will be held to discuss interviewing a community liaison for the project.  Chris Ganson was appointed to serve on the committee. He has been very involved in the planning process and lives nearby.

 

            B.  Oak Park Bond Prioritization Workshop Summary Repot – Chris Pahule, SHRA

Chris Pahule thanked all of the participants in last month’s prioritization workshop. There was a good amount of thought put into the workshop. This is the third RAC meeting in which we will plan for our investment strategy. Pahule gave a recap and review and spoke about the next steps in the process. At the January 11th meeting, the RAC will work on the funding levels for each category and take comments. Chris referred to the handout on four main areas of investment identified in the Oak Park 2005-2009 Implementation Plan Redevelopment Strategy:

·        Oak Park Historic District Program

·        Great Public Spaces

·        Corridor Enhancement

·        Housing Program Strategy

 

The handout showed the top rankings of projects within these categories. There were not a lot of large development projects and the RAC members discussed the momentum caused by increased land values and that there may be less need to provide incentives in some areas of redevelopment. Chris noted that incentives are still needed in addition to infrastructure. The new Quiznos did not request any development assistance.

 

C. Relocation of the structure located at 4722 9th Ave.  – Chris Pahule, SHRA

At the November RAC meeting, staff presented a report that would approve a Disposition and Development Agreement with NeighborWorks to relocate the home at 4722 9th Avenue to 3343 43rd Street, and provide a $110,000 grant to assist with the costs of moving the home. Following public testimony and discussion, the committee requested the following from SHRA

·        Development feasibility and options should the home remain in place.

·        Availability of vacant land in the original development tract; and,

·        Reasonable cost of moving the home to a vacant lot in its original tract.

 

In addition they were asked to recap relevant planning documents that were intended to guide the redevelopment process. Chris Pahule presented a five-page report including the following information:

1.      Background/Previous Actions

2.      Area Vision

3.      Development Opportunities/Feasibility

4.      Availability of Land in the Wright & Kimbrough Tract

5.      Analysis of Costs

 

Handouts also included relevant sections of the Broadway/Stockton Urban Design Plan, the Market Analysis and Implementation Strategy, 2004-2009 for the Oak Park Redevelopment Project Area, and a map of vacant residential parcels.

 

Chris summarized the guidelines of the planning documents, which include restoring the commercial district and developing mixed uses. This is a strong corridor, with many narrow, shallow and irregular-sized lots.

 

Cynthia Shallit, an SHRA Management analyst showed a map of the parcel and explained that:

1.      As noted in section #3 of the report, for a developer, there is much more flexibility in developing the property if the bungalow is moved. Local developers and designers, including The Olson Company, Regent, and Mogavero & Notestine were consulted about the parcel. If the bungalow were moved from the parcel, 18,000 square feet of development potential exists on the site, after setbacks (or %70 percent of the site). If the blue bungalow stayed, 15,000 square feet of development potential exists. The bungalow limits the access and egress from the lot, would be in conflict with a two story development, and would interfere with potential design alternatives. In addition, if left in place, would leave a very odd-shaped area for development.

2.      Cynthia presentation referred to a map of vacant lots in Tahoe Park. Three out of eight were in the Wright Kimbrough tract and the others were in a development that doesn’t match the design of the bungalow.

3.   The cost difference between moving the home to 3343 43rd Street versus moving the home to a new lot within Tahoe Park is the cost of the new lot – in the proposal presented last month, there is no cost for the Oak Park lot. None of the lots in the Kimbrough development tract are for sale, but it is estimated that they would cost  $150,000 to $200,000.  It would still cost approximately $110,000 to relocate the home (moving expenses) and the sales price of the bungalow would still be restricted to approximately $225,000 for a homeowner that qualifies for affordable housing.

 

Bud Aungst explained that he had recused himself last time because he is on the Board of NeighborWorks. He later discovered that since he has no financial interest in the project, it was unnecessary to recuse himself. McDonald supported the efforts that had gone into the recommendation, including the partnership with a non-profit to acquire a lot, fund the move and renovation, and provide affordable housing. Aungst noted that the house fits the neighborhood, fills a vacant lot in an area where the neighborhood is turning around, and is cost effective considering the alternatives.

 

Redmond expressed the desire to see the money spent to rehabilitate the bungalow in place. Curry-Evans wanted to hear more from the people of Oak Park and would prefer to see it moved to Tahoe Park, since it seems that it can’t stay where it is. Lackey brought up the issue of timing and Pahule noted that it could take at least six months and add significantly to the cost of the move.

 

Aungst stated that the first objections to the proposed move to Oak Park were raised at the last meeting. In 2004, the PAC voted to move the building. Pahule noted that the RAC does not have to follow the decisions of the PAC, but that the City Council will take formal action.  Ganson expressed support for moving the bungalow because we need a quality development on Stockton Blvd., vacant lots are a problem and Oak Park needs homes.

 

Public member Kathy Orr noted that the Bond Workshop Summary did not include any marks for the development of that lot as a priority. What impact will a development have on that bungalow? Just east is another bungalow operated as a day care center.

 

Public member Trina Whitney asked about the cost of the Oak Park lot. Cynthia clarified that the lot actually cost $60,000, but would require no new money. Whitney explained that she owns property at 4926 12 Avenue, lot 06 is available and she has inquired about moving the bungalow with her own funds. She has been shot down at every turn. There has been opposition from the beginning, when neighbors campaigned before the City Council. If it can’t be moved within the Kimbrough tract, it doesn’t fit in the other part of Tahoe Park and should go to Oak Park.

 

Public member Tracy Willis asked if the developers of the Regency Place are interested. Pahule said that there is no agreement in place.

 

Public member Claire McKeithern noted that they are re-doing downtown Sacramento with commercial and housing development. She would like to see the house moved to the lower part of the lot on Stockton Blvd. and it should be rehabilitated.

 

Public member Tom Sumpter noted that the blue bungalow is a bigger house, but not historic. The Regency Project was the original concept and the development across the street will be massive. Time is of the essence to save the building.

 

Public member Zina Davis noted that she’s been in Oak Park for 17 years and it is sad that there are not enough people at the meeting. She suggested advertising and sending notices. Aungst noted that letters were sent to every household.

 

Public member Ron Emslie said that SHRA squanders a lot of money. Whitney made a good offer.

 

Public member Bobbi Mercouri stated that for five years we’ve tried to get SHRA to cut loose. They have bulldozed houses and not let anyone buy them. She feels that it should be moved to the South side of the lot. Regency has plans and they want the area to look like a street in Paris. The RAC has been misinformed and disinformed.

 

Public member Richard Greene stated that there is urgency because the business community and the market are driving economics. Although it is not a priority, some developers don’t need incentives. They can purchase and develop and make money. Whether it’s Regency or another developer, someone will want to develop. At the corner of Parker and Stockton Blvd. there was a beautiful vacant home that recently burned to the ground. The bungalow could and should be saved and the RAC should make a decision.

 

A motion to allow NeighborWorks to move the blue bungalow to 3324 43rd Street and provide $110,000 to assist with costs passed.

 

Aungst acknowledged that SHRA has been a poor steward and apologized for any negativity that he may have expressed.

 

VI.        Oak Park Redevelopment Area Project Updates – Erika Bumgardner, SHRA

 

1. Some RAC members’ terms will be expiring in January. They are welcome to re-apply. They are Curry-Evans, Hilbert, Redmond, Straub, Thomas and Taylor.

 

2.  Washington and Days Markets have been unresponsive. The next step is to analyze condemnation. This will be back before the RAC in January or February.

 

4.  The Oak Park Design Guidelines are in the process of final revisions and should be presented to the RAC in February.

 

5.  There has been no progress on the Donner Field project due to the development of the land trust affordability model. A DDA will be coming to the RAC next year.

 

6.      A letter will be coming out to explain SHRA’s attempt to convert to email distribution. People can still request to receive information by mail. The transition will be made in February.

 

7.      Erika will follow up on the lack of heat in the room.

 

VI.        Informational Items

None

 

VII.       Communication from RAC Members and Public on Items Not on the Agenda

 

A.     Chris Ganson announced that T-shirts are being sold by the Oak Park Neighborhood Association.

 

B.     Zina Davis told the RAC that she will bring in more community support and ask her neighbors to attend meetings.

 

VIII.      Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 PM.