Redevelopment Advisory Committee
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
6:30 PM
*These meeting
minutes are unapproved. The Oak Park RAC
will take action on the minutes at the February 8th RAC meeting.
I. Call to Order
Committee Chairperson, Edenausegboye Davis, called the meeting to order at 6:30 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: None
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. She noted that the date on the agenda should read 2006.
IV. Approval of the December 14, 2005 RAC Meeting Minutes
The minutes were approved unanimously.
V. Redevelopment Items
A.
This discussion is part 2 of 3
meeting reports on the use
of tax increment bond funds. Last month Chris Pahule reported on the
summary of the November Prioritization community Workshopworkshop. He distributed handouts which The handout
presented this evening includesd the staff proposed
percentages for investments in each of the four major categories in the Oak Park Implementation
Plan for the next few years. The time period for implementation will take us
through 2009.
Corridor
Enhancements – 30-40%
Great
Public Spaces – 20%
Oak
Park Historic District – 20-30%
Housing
Strategy – 20-25%
RAC member Redmond asked about
the possibility of double dipping. Pahule said that funds would not be used
like that, but that there was overlap. McDonald mentioned that there could be
crossover where a project was in the historic corridor, but also could be
considered great public space. Aungst mentioned the need to replace housing
units that have been taken. Pahule said that there will be a report in May,
which is required annually by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development, which addresses steps that are being taken to meet housing
requirements. We are doing fine in Oak Park. Housing can be replaced 2 for 1
outside a project area.
RAC member Aungst
asked about the status of
replacement housing units. expressed
concern that housing units taken should be replaced. Pahule explained that the Oak Park Redevelopment Area was
meeting its housing requirement and that the State Department of Housing and
Community Development requires a report annually from
the Redevelopment Agency showing the steps taken to meet housing
requirements. Agency staff will provide
the RAC will a synopsis of the report in April or May.
RAC member Taylor noted that and Pahule explained that the park recently received
redevelopment funds which may be why it, as well as it’s not there because it has
recently received money, along with Temple Park.
Lackey mentioned that it’s
important to look for projects that act as a catalyst for investment and that
get the best results.
Public member McKeithern voiced
concern that there is nothing for South Oak Park and there is too much emphasis
on MLK, Broadway and Stockton Blvd. Pahule responded that SHRA is extremely
interested in South Oak Park and some of the projects in progress include
housing, the Weed and Seed Grant Program and the recent Rebuilding Together
event. McKeithern would like to see a better streetscape, including 19th
Avenue, and stop signs. Pahule mentioned the importance of walkability and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.
There was concern expressed from the public that
RAC member Lackey asked for
clarification that we’re not limited to the projects on the list on the left of
the handout and Pahule confirmed that these are representative priorities and
we can fund things that aren’t on the list.
Projects not included on the list can still be
funded. Those currently listed are
representative priorities and can be added to as projects come forward. New projects will be considered in relation to the overall project categories as prioritized by the community.
Public member Emslie spoke about
the need to focus on South Oak Park, including lighting. He noted that kiddie
swings were added to 4th Street Park, but nothing for teenagers.
There is not enough maintenance funding and things have been allowed to rot
while other parks get funding.
Pahule noted that the next step will be to look at cost estimates at our March meeting. We will break into smaller groups to further prioritize and develop a strategy.
B. Approval for the Agency to
Acquire the
RAC members Curry-Evans and
Davis began by announcing that they would abstain from voting and sit in the
audience for this item. possibly potentially be demolished
to allow for a new project at that location. The total amount allocated for the
purchase and related costs are is $1.5 million. Aungst
supports the purchase and does not want to see a Laundromat go into that site
because of loitering. It is an important site in the historic district.
McDonald asked about the asking price and the timeline for new development. She
was concerned about other vacant parcels that have taken many years to be
developed.
the RAC
doesn’t have the option of bailing out, but the City
Council could decide not to approve the final purchase.
Hilbert noted that the
building has been vacant for 2 years and asked Pahule about the funding source.
The money is not from the new $20 million in new bond funding.
It is from the annual tax increment money. Could it become a new Community
Youth Center. Bumgardner said that it’s a possibility, but that Aa community
participation process would help determine project consistency with the Broadway and Stockton Urban
Design Plan and
the future use of the site. and its consistency with the Broadway and Stockton
Urban Design Plan.
Ganson said that it’s a key
property and a new development could build on the excitement of the area. He
likes the idea of the community having control of what goes in there. He asked
if the money could be recaptured in a future sale and Pahule said that it
could.
Thomas asked how long the
property has been for sale and Bumgardner said four months. Pahule said that
additional public assistance (funding) is not anticipated beyond the initial
$1.5 million. Thomas noted that nothing is happening with the vacant triangle
parcel and Pahule said that we are waiting to see what is proposed for the
Walton and Made Rite sites.
Straub shares the concerns but
felt that things will get done by doing them and prefers to go ahead with this
purchase. Ganson acknowledged that it’s frustrating and it’s important to take
the time to do things right. Aungst felt that it is $1.5 million invested into
putting in what is best for the site.
Councilwoman Lauren Hammond
spoke about understanding the frustration about all of SHRA’s acquisitions taking a long time to get
developed. She suggested a status report about what is vacant, what is
commercial vs. residential, the net worth, etc. This is an important district
and we don’t want to contribute to gap between the “haves” and the “have nots.”
The current owners will have to come to the City Council and meet the current
design standards with any improvements they might propose.
Perhaps money should be spent on
MLK, which is one of the ugliest streets in Sacramento. SHRA could buy up some
of those lots, slow down traffic. We have to ask how much should be acquired
before we develop. Economically, we want to grow out of being a redevelopment
area.
There
was public comment that more money should be allocated to
Public member
Emslie expressed the opinion that it is a waste of money and private industry
should be allowed to improve the lot. There are other properties that have been
allowed to rot and they would be a better redevelopment investment. There are
places to buy where people are shooting up and living on the street. He has no
faith that things will get done in a timely manner. It took 15 years to deal
with the Taco Rico site. More money should go to South Oak Park. Pahule
explained that there was a lawsuit due to toxic contamination at the Taco Rico
site, which delayed the process for many years.
Public member
McKeithern felt that if a Laundromat is needed, what’s wrong with that? She
felt that SHRA shouldn’t spend the money on it, just let the owner sit on it.
There was
further discussion from the RAC about the cost and Hilbert noted that a three
bedroom house in East Sacramento costs $1 million and the entire real estate
market is going up.
Public member
Raphael Miles owns the Red Fox market and explained his frustration with the
City’s refusal to allow him to renovate his building.
A motion to approve the proposed purchase of 3409 Broadway passed.
VI. Informational Items
A.
1. SHRA is moving to acquire Washington and Days Markets through condemnation. This may be the only item on the February RAC agenda.
2. The first steering committee for Broadway/MLK will include a liaison. They will meet at the end of the month and most likely bring a preliminary plan to the RAC meeting in March. They have not met with the City’s Transportation Department.
3. Future
meetings regarding the disposition and relocation of the
4. The next Weed and Seed meeting will be January 25. They are waiting to hear from the U.S. Department of Justice.
5. Current RAC members who need to re-apply will stay in place until they are re-appointed. Applications should go to the City Clerk’s office by February 10th. The tenant position is still vacant.
6. A
letter came
went 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. Cheryl Rose, from the City’s Department of Parks and Recreation presented a brochure and explanation of Youthworks and the many good things that are accomplished through Workreation.
B.
Bud reported that three
proposed buildings were reviewed this evening and they seemed to be higher
quality designs than other we have recently reviewed.
VII. Communication from RAC Members and Public on Items Not on the Agenda
A. A
public member noted that there was an article in the Business Journal about a
research center being proposed for the
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 PM.