HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 2000-01-21 - Special Meeting
20
Redding City Council
Special Meeting
City Council Chambers
1313 California Street
Redding, California
January 21,2000 12:00 Noon
The joint meeting with the Redding Planning Commission was called to order at 12: 00 noon by I
Mayor Anderson with the following Council Members present: Cibula, Kight, Pohlmeyer, McGeorge, .
and Anderson.
Chair Rutledge called the Planning Commission's meeting to order with the following Planning
Commissioners present: Brickwood, Gaynor, Weatherill, Woodward, and Rutledge. Commissioner
Swanson arrived at 12: 15 p. m. Commissioner Maurer-Watkins was absent.
Also present were City Manager Warren, City Attorney Wingate, Assistant City Manager Perry,
Public Works Director August, Planning Manager Hamilton, Deputy City Manager Starman,
Administrative Services Director Bachman, Support Services Director Kersten, Management
Assistant to the City Manager Niemer, Senior Planner Keaney, Senior Planner Morgon, Senior
Planner Haddox, Senior Planner DeMallie, Senior Planner Manuel, Associate Planner Thompson,
Assistant Planner Dent, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Executive Secretary Rudolph.
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
(R-030-145-350)
Council Member Cibula related that he had previously disclosed his ownership in property in the
vicinity of Court and Shasta Streets, as well as working for an employer located on Tehama Street.
He stated that after carefully reading the plan, he concluded that it would not be appropriate for him
to participate in today's discussion, therefore, he would be abstaining on the matter.
City Manager Warren explained that the Downtown Specific Plan (Plan) would enable the City to
determine where the Downtown should be in future years. He stated that in 1994 and 1995, the City
Council was discussing whether to spend $25,000 in the Downtown. Since that time, in addition to
the City's contributions, substantial investments had been made in the Downtown through community
participation, i.e., The McConnell Foundation, MarketFest, Downtown Redding Business
Association, Shasta Builders' Exchange (Carnegie Stage), and Jefferson Public Radio (Cascade
Theater). Improvements which had been made in the Downtown included the Market Street
Demonstration Block and Library Park. Future public improvements included the Yuba Street
Streetscape Project, North Market Street improvements ($1 million), South Market Street
improvements (approximately $1 million), Cypress Avenue improvements associated with the new
Civic Center (between $1 and $2 million), and Cypress Avenue Bridge widening. In addition, he
related that the Redding Redevelopment Agency would be considering funding relative to the
Redding Hotel. He noted that the primary purpose for today's meeting was to provide direction to
the consultant, Urban Design Studio (UDS), and make sure that the product was on track in its final
stages.
Deputy City Manager Starman expressed appreciation to Senior Planner Morgon for his work on the
Plan. He also recalled that the City Council had appointed the Downtown Review Committee
approximately two years ago to review and consider a broad range of issues relative to the
Downtown. He indicated that the Committee was to sunset on February 1, 2000, and he wanted to
also express appreciation to them for their dedication and work.
Mark Brodeur, Urban Design Studio (UDS), provided an overhead presentation relative to the Plan
and highlighted its main components: Introduction; Downtown Planning and Design Framework;
Redding Mall Disposition; Development Standards; Design Guidelines; Wayfinding System;
Circulation and Infrastructure; Implementation and Administration; Market Study; and Housing
Study. He explained that Downtown was a unique place and was viewed by the community-at-Iarge
as one of its prized possessions. He stated that a revitalized Downtown was attractive, safe,
January 21,2000
I
I
I
I
I
21
economically vibrant, and respectful of history and natural resources. In addition, it was integrated
with shops, housing, work sites, parks, and civic facilities which were pedestrian oriented and inviting
to both residents and visitors. He indicated that companies which were considering whether to locate
in a particular area looked at a community's downtown and whether the entire community could take
pride in it.
Mr. Brodeur related that the top ten funding sources which could be drawn upon for funding the Plan
were: (1) general taxes; (2) tax increment from combined project area; (3) transient occupancy tax;
(4) benefit assessment district; (5) sales tax increase; (6) General Fund; (7) Community Development
Block Grant funds; (8) development fees; (9) exactions; and (10) private donations. He noted that
the Plan also identifies 29 second sources of funding, but that the City would need to compete with
other communities seeking similar assistance.
Mr. Starman stressed that even if the City Council did not want to impose taxes or reallocate funds,
he did not believe it would eliminate the need for the Plan, but merely determine how quickly certain
portions of the Plan could be implemented. He noted that the consultant did an excellent job in the
first chapter of the Plan relative to the end product, i.e., pedestrian focus and quality oflife issues.
Planning Commissioner Weatherill stated that he had read the document in great detail and read his
letter to the City Council and Planning Commission dated January 21,2000, incorporated herein by
reference, into the record outlining his general comments and observations.
Planning Commissioner Woodward noted that he had similar concerns as Commissioner Weatherill.
He indicated that it was difficult to determine whether the vision had an economic base, whether it
benefited the Downtown, was an economic integer, and could support costs. He related that the Plan
recognized the need to move the Greyhound bus station near the Redding Area Bus Authority
(RABA) station, and he questioned the need to centralize these functions rather than move it to
another location of the City.
Mr. Brodeur replied that the concept referred to as intermodal transportation planning brought all
major forms of transportation within walking distance of one another.
Planning Commission Woodward stated that what came to his mind when reviewing the potential
primary funding sources was educating the public relative to the Downtown. He further stated that
associated risks were not discussed, i.e., a district utilizing the 1950s theme.
Mr. Brodeur stated that he has never had a community lose which focused on its history. He related
that utilizing genuine community history ran a low risk of being outdated or going out of style.
In response to Planning Commissioner Woodward, Mr. Brodeur stressed that the City should not turn
its back on franchises wanting to locate Downtown. With regard to design review guidelines, he
related that developers generally preferred to develop in an area with design guidelines, however, he
opposed the establishment of a review board.
In response to Planning Commissioner Woodward, Mr. Starman estimated approximately one third
of the City's total sales tax revenue was generated by non-City residents.
Planning Commissioner Rutledge supported reopening Butte and Market Streets to through vehicular
traffic. He believed this action would go a long way in bringing the community back together.
Dugan Barr opined that the City was the largest landowner in Downtown and most of the needed
improvements were to City real estate. He cited the improvements which had been made to the
Downtown over the last five years and the positive response it had created. He, therefore,
encouraged the City to adopt the Plan or some version of it in order to keep this positive momentum
moving forward.
January 21,2000
22
Ward Gandy voiced support for the Plan as long as it was economically feasible. He disclosed his
conflict due to property ownership in the Downtown. He stressed that he did not want to see the City
do anything that deterred the positive momentum occurring in the Downtown. He praised the City's
generosity in providing a full-time staff person dedicated to the Downtown's revitalization as well
as other areas of the City. He related that The McConnell Foundation, as well as the many volunteer
groups with no vested interest in the area, had also publically supported these revitalization efforts.
As the City proceeds with th~ Plan, he stated that there were four recommendations which should be I
considered: (1) was it specific; (2) was it doable; (3) what did the recommendation cost; and (4) how
was it financed or funded? Once these questions could be affirmatively answered, he encouraged the
City to proceed with the Plan.
Jeff Swanson viewed the Plan has a blueprint for development in the Downtown, as well as a
planning tool for the community to implement its vision. He opined that the Plan represented the
community's collective vision for Downtown based on information gathered through surveys,
community meetings, and community groups. He viewed the Plan as a tool and not a commitment
to spend a specified amount of funding. He asked that the process not be short circuited because of
funding, but the market allowed to dictate how improvements progressed in the Downtown.
Mike Arnold, President ofthe Downtown Redding Business Association (DRBA) and landowner in
the City, noted that the DRBA was formed with 99 percent of the businesses agreeing to form the
district and paying the applicable assessments. He too viewed the Plan as a blueprint for the future.
As a member of the Downtown Review Committee, the Committee spoke to many different cities and
he was convinced that the Plan would be good for both the Downtown as well as the entire
community. He desired the Downtown to be successful and encouraged the City to allow the Plan
process to continue. He acknowledged that the Plan would take many years to implement, but at
least it would provide the necessary vision to build upon.
Ellen Chain viewed the Plan as an excellent opportunity to improve Redding. She cited the I
development of the Sacramento River Trail and the fact that, at the time of its conception, there were
no funds available for its development, however, it is a reality today. She encouraged the City to
proceed with the Plan.
Heather Cibula stated that after moving to Redding she had changed her opinion of the City, because
she realized the beauty ofthe rivers, mountains, and neighborhoods. She indicated that she had asked
herself why people had a negative view of Redding and she concluded it was because of the
Downtown. She described the Downtown as being neglected and an unsafe place, and opined that
the investment in the Downtown would bring in additional development and grant funding. She
stressed that the community had shown its desire to revitalize the Downtown and urged the City to
proceed with the Plan.
Margaret Jenson related that she sells vegetables Downtown as part ofthe farmer's market. She cited
conversations with individuals who raved about being able to come Downtown and find diverse
services and products. She indicated that one area which had not been addressed today was the
provision of children's services. She noted that there were so many pieces of this Plan which could
be promoted as being good for families and children, i.e., trails, sidewalks with trees. She urged the
City to promote this Plan from a family-friendly standpoint.
Shawn Tillman asked the City to pay close attention to the comments from members of the
community speaking today. He noted that these people were truly custodians of the community and I
were conveying the community's desires. He related that an objective of the Downtown Review
Committee was to analyze this issue and, subsequently, bring back a recommendation for the City's
consideration. He urged the City to support the Plan, approve it, and respect that it was the will of
the community. He believed the Downtown would be an important part of the City's future.
Diane Moty recalled that her father was the City's Mayor when the Downtown Mall was developed.
She believed that the Mall concept was dead and that the City needed to move forward with new
January 21,2000
I
I
I
23
concepts. She noted that people with no interest in the Downtown travel there to meet with their
friends.
Lynda Scheben related that there had been a tremendous amount of activity and volunteer services
put into the Downtown over the last five years. She stated that commerce and cultural activities
would bring vitality to the Downtown. She stressed that public-private partnerships work and
believed that those opportunities were available. Ms. Scheben expressed excitement over the
revitalization process and urged the City to move forward with the planning process.
Marge Cantrell encouraged the City to proceed with the Plan. She made the following observations:
(1) The need for either an overpass or underpass on Placer Street or another area Downtown; and
(2) There was not a need to educate the public. She viewed this Plan as being more important than
the Parkvie~ Bridge, another industrial park, or even the on-ramp at Hilltop Drive. She concurred
that companies considering investing in the City look at such things as streets, schools, quality oflife,
and a community's Downtown. She would like to see the roof taken off the Downtown Mall and the
streets reopened to traffic, an underpass on Placer Street, the two-story parking structure repaired,
and the Greyhound Bus Depot relocated. She emphas~zed that if there was a limited amount of
funding, it should be utilized on streets and the general public would do the rest.
Chuck Zink, 800 August Way, concurred with some of the concepts set forth in the Plan. He recalled
that if the City had not built the Mall, Redding would have become a Willows or Corning. He viewed
the Mall as the Downtown's salvation. He acknowledged that the Mall did not have the traffic it had
in the 1970s, but without it, development such as the Foundry Square, Redding Book Store, Lorenz
Hotel remodel, etc., would not have occurred. Today, he stated that the Mall had 73 businesses and
offices with less than a 15 percent vacancy. He questioned the need to tear the roof off the mall and
suggested the use of private money similar to that which occurred on Athens Avenue approximately
two years ago. He suggested that the interior of the Mall be left alone and focus placed on the
building's exterior. He pointed out the already existing shortage of parking due to the offices located
in the Mall. He asked that the City think strong and hard whether it wanted to charge sales tax to
remove the Mall's roof and open up the streets or utilize the money to dress-up its exterior.
James Theimer stated that as a local architect he had been involved since the beginning in the
Downtown's revitalization. He related that the Plan particularly presents two great ideas: (1) put
traffic back through the Mall; and (2) develop a large central public space. He pointed out that many
of the people who spoke today had no financial interest in the Downtown, but had a great passion
for its successful revitalization. He emphasized that the City must maintain forward progress in order
for the revitalization effort to be successful in developing a Downtown of which the community can
be proud.
James Dolan related that he came from Winnepeg, Manitoba, and restrictions on buildings, high rent,
extreme taxes, and the lack of parking had succeeded in destroying that one-time beautiful city. He
believed some of these same factors contributed to the deterioration of Redding' s Downtown. While
it would be nice to reopen the streets in the mall and revitalize the Downtown area, he indicated that
it needed forethought and investigation. He suggested that tax breaks be provided to business owners
to encourage them to locate in the Downtown.
Alice Promeski, 2579 Russell Street, stated that she had spent a tremendous amount of her own time
to bring public art to Redding. She opined that the public art work in the form of the bridge andthe
improvements occurring Downtown are solid indicators that the Downtown is to be a focus area and
requested that the City proceed with the Plan, as it represented a good direction and future for
Redding.
At the hour of2:34 p.m., Mayor Anderson recessed the meeting.
At the hour of2:42 p.m., Mayor Anderson reconvened the joint meeting.
January 21,2000
24
Mayor Anderson pointed out that it is not the intent of the City Council to "kill" the Plan, but merely
determine what could be expected financially and the available funding sources. From the outset of
this process, it was his understanding that the private sector would be taking the lead and the City
would assist to some extent financially. He suggested that the City Council provide staff with
direction as to what they could expect the City Council to approve in the way of financial funding
sources. The Council Members conveyed individual positions on available funding sources as
follows:
General Taxes:
Tax Increment Financing:
Transient Occupancy Tax:
Benefit Assessment District:
Sales Tax Increase:
General Fund:
Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG):
Development Fees:
Exactions:
Private Donations:
All Council Members opposed this as a viable funding source.
All Council Members supported this source of funding.
Council Member McGeorge - Could possibly support if 50 percent
commitment to tourism was changed.
Council Member Kight - Opposed, wanted to see fund~ going to
tourism.
Council Member Pohlmeyer - Open for consideration.
Mayor Anderson - Opposed.
Council Members Kight, Pohlmeyer, and Mayor Anderson supporte~
the concept, while Council Member McGeorge was agreeable to
considering the option with additional information.
Council Member Kight - Agreeable if people voted in favor of
Increase.
Council Member McGeorge - Opposed due to potential legislation
which could take as much as $500,000 from the City's existing sales
tax revenue.
Council Member Pohlmeyer - Opposed.
Mayor Anderson - Possibly, but noted that iflegislation passed which
took additional sales tax from the City there may be a need to place an
issue on the ballot in order for the City to keep its head above water.
All Council Members opposed this. concept unless there was an
. .
Increase In revenues.
All Council Members supported, but noted that it must compete with
other requests for funding.
All Council Members opposed this concept.
All Council Members supported this concept.
All Council Members supported this concept.
Mr. Starman pointed out that the Vision Statement did an excellent job of outlining the process and
asked for comments relative to the Downtown Mall.
Removing Roof from the Mall:
Council Member Kight believed consideration should be given to opening up the streets to through
traffic. He supported removing the roof in some fashion and developing open space and a park.
Council Member McGeorge concurred with Council Member Kight's observations.
I
I
Council Member Pohlmeyer also concurred, but expressed a desire in knowing to what extent the
City would be required to participate financially.
Mayor Anderson had no opposition to taking the roof off the Mall and reopening the streets to traffic. I
He noted that participation would be required from the property owners by giving back previously
acquired right of way to the City and doing some facade improvements.
Planning Commissioners Rutledge and Swanson were in favor of the proposed Mall improvements.
January 21,2000
I
I
I
25
Planning Commissioner Weatherill noted that there appeared to be a difference of opinion relative to
the Mall and was impressed by Mr. Zink's discussion relative to the Mall and its vacancy rate which
would indicate that the Mall was economically viable.
Open Space Concept and Property Acquisition:
Council Members Kight and McGeorge supported the creation of open space on the east side of the
Mall property.
Council Member Pohlmeyer conceptually supported the proposal, but indicated he would need further
information regarding the economics before making a decision.
Mayor Anderson did not oppose the creation of open space, but questioned where the funds would
be derived. He was not certain he could support the purchase of the Greyhound Bus Depot and
expressed a desire to see this development completed by the private sector.
Planning Commissioner Rutledge supported the development of an open space area and referenced
the need for larger gathering areas for such events as MarketF est.
Facade Concept:
Council Member Kight liked the concept of updating the facades. He was not certain, however, what
process would be utilized in achieving this goal, i.e., grants, low-income loans, etc.
Council Member Pohlmeyer concurred with Council Member Kight, but noted that it would depend
on the financing and the extent of the City's participation.
Mayor Anderson expressed an interest in pursuing the concept, but noted that it would also require
the participation of the private sector.
Planning Commissioner Weatherill stated that updating the exterior facades is a good concept. If the
City, however, were acting as an investment banker, he believed there should be interest associated
with the loan.
Planning Commissioner Rutledge pointed out that other cities had done a good job with similar
programs.
Development Standards - Zoning Districts:
Council Member Kight believed the development of zoning districts was generally a good idea and
liked the idea of a land use matrix. He stressed, however, that he would need to be convinced about
the use of standards versus guidelines. He favored the Planning Commission working on this portion
of the Plan before it was presented to the City Council.
Council Member McGeorge concurred with Council Member Kight's observations relative to
standards versus guidelines. He pointed out that the City could not be so restrictive that it stopped
development.
Council Member Kight was impressed by the speakers today and the excitement displayed. He
viewed this as an ongoing process and emphasized that he wanted to see the process continue moving
forward.
Council Member McGeorge liked what he saw, but noted concern in a couple of existing areas, i.e.,
viability of residential development and the merits of another theater given the two already existing
large multiple-screen theaters. He stated that somewhere along the line he would like to see the
parking structure reviewed and the possibility of developing a trolley which was utilized in such
communities as Orlando. Given the development ofthe Civic Center and Turtle Bay, he believed this
may be a viable alternative.
January 21,2000
26
Council Member Pohlmeyer was encouraged by the number of citizens present and their comments.
He believed that if some level of fiscal constraint were exercised, projects could be accomplished.
Mayor Anderson expressed concern regarding apartments and the associated interest. He indicated
that the Plan should be viewed as a document which looked far into the future. He opined that the
City should enhance what was working rather than trying to redesign it. He stressed that whatever
was developed, flexibility was the key. While the process may be slower than many would like, he I
assured the audience that the Plan would move forward and the City would be behind it to the extent
it could find the required funding.
Commissioner Rutledge noted that the Plan may need to be accomplished in pieces as funds became
available, but the key was to remain flexible.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, at the hour 00 : 18 p. m., Mayor Anderson and Planning Commission
Chair Rutledge declared the meetings adjourned.
APPROVED
9y#QdL~
Mayor
ATTEST
~~'1
City Clerk {
I
I
January 21,2000