Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - unsigned - 1989-02-28 City Council, Adjourned Regular Meeting Redding Convention Center Redding, California February 28, 1989 6:00 p.m. The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Johannessen with the following Council Members present: Buffum, Carter, Dahl, and Fulton. A joint meeting of the City Council, Redding Planning Commission, Redding Redevelopment Agency, and the Recreation and Parks Commission was held. Those present were Planning Commissioners Burrell, Gelonek, Potter, Anthis, Ogden, Chapin, and Bosetti; Redding Redevelopment Agency Members Topolski, Green, McDaniel, Rutledge, Ernst, and Weld; and Recreation and Parks Commissioners Tomasin, Klaseen, Elkins, Cervantes, and Johnson. Also present were City Manager Christofferson, Assistant City Manager McMurry, Planning and Community Development Director Perry, Public Works Director Galusha, Director of Finance Downing, Director of Parks and Recreation Riley, Housing Administrator Maurer, Senior Associate Planner King, Accountant Robinson, Transportation Coordinator Duryee, Museum Director Foster, Central Records Coordinator Morgan, Public Information Officer Hastings, Science Museum Director Howe, Administrative Assistant Anstine, Engineering Technician Coats, Special Legal Counsel McNeill, City Clerk Nichols, and Secretary to the City Council Moscatello. APPLICATION FOR MORTGAGE BOND ALLOCATION (R-030-060-400) Planning and Community Development Director Perry stated that the Redding Redevelopment Agency has researched the possibility of implementing a Mortgage Credit Certificate Program for first-time home buyers within the City of Redding. Mr. Perry explained that an application must be made by the City to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee. Redding could apply for a maximum allocation of $20,000,000 which would be converted to $5,000,000 in Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC). Costs of administering the program will be borne by fees charged to the homebuyer/applicant, and the Redevelopment Agency will fund the $5,000 application fee as well as the security deposit in the amount of 1% of the issue amount. Consequently, there will be no cost to the City. Mr. Perry stated that the County of Shasta has expressed its intent to make a similar application. Staff has discussed implementing a cooperative agreement between the City and the County whereby MCCs from either jurisdiction could be transferred to meet the demand. It is the recommendation of staff that Council authorize the City Manager to apply for participation in the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program and authorize the Redding Redevelopment Agency to implement the program. It is also recommended that the City and County enter into a Cooperative Agreement allowing the transfer of certificates should the need to do so arise. MOTION: Made by Council Member Dahl, seconded by Council Member Carter, that Resolution No. 89-68 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding authorizing the City Manager to make application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee for Mortgage Credit Certificate Issuance Authority; authorizing the Redding Redevelopment Agency to implement the program, and enter into a Cooperative Agreement with Shasta County allowing for the transfer of allocations between jurisdictions. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - Buffum, Carter, Dahl, Fulton and Johannessen Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 89-68 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING THE CIVIC CENTER SITE (C-050-025 & C-070-010-020) Mayor Johannessen welcomed the community to the joint meeting of the City Council, Redding Planning Commission, Redding Redevelopment Agency, and Recreation and Parks Commission. He stated that the reason for tonight's joint agency meeting is to discuss the two major sites, Parkview/Cypress Avenue and Benton Ranch, that are under consideration for the construction of a new City Hall and Government Center. Mayor Johannessen noted that Les Melburg, from the architectural firm of Nichols, Melburg & Rosetto, civic center design consultants, will be available for questions. Mayor Johannessen stated that a letter was received from a citizen alleging that Mayor Johannessen had a potential conflict of interest in dealing with the location of the civic center on the Benton Ranch property and the construction of a bridge across the Sacramento River because the Mayor owns property on Auditorium Avenue. Mayor Johannessen referred this question to Special Legal Counsel McNeill for a legal opinion. Special Legal Counsel McNeill stated that Mayor Johannessen does not have a conflict of interest. Mr. McNeill explained that the decision to place a bridge across the Sacramento River in this area was a policy decision made prior to Mayor Johannessen serving on the City Council. He noted that Benton Ranch would accommodate public and government buildings, not commercial buildings. Mr. McNeill added that it is speculative if a bridge would improve the quality of the surrounding property. He conveyed that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is available for advice regarding conflict of interests. Mr. McNeill said he conferred with the FPPC and their attorney concurred with his opinion. Thus, Mayor Johannessen can make decisions regarding Benton Ranch. Les Melburg, Nichols, Melburg & Rosetto, stated that Council Member Carter submitted a list of questions to the architects regarding the comparative study of Benton Ranch and Parkview properties. Mr. Melburg responded as follows. With regard to question 1-1, the architects are not offering a preferred option for use of the Parkview property if the civic center is built at Benton Ranch. With regard to question 1-2, a redevelopment plan for the Parkview property, if not used for a civic center site, has not been prepared yet. With regard to question 1-3, the placing of a softball complex on the Parkview property, the possibility has not been considered because there are conflicts with traffic and night lighting. With regard to question 1-4, staff has indicated that construction of the proposed softball complex would proceed regardless of where the civic center is located. With regard to question 1-5, Mr. Melburg reviewed the statistics on costs of improving the corporation yard at Parkview. With regard to question 2, construction of the Parkview Bridge will remain the top priority regardless of where the civic center is located. With regard to question 3, Mr. Melburg explained that the cost difference for the Auditorium Drive extension and bridge and a connector road from Route 273 to Hilltop Drive between DKS Associates Study and staff's and the architect's estimate is due to the following: the City of Redding now owns the property, thus costs associated with right-of-way acquisition are no longer pertinent; the difference between a two-lane and four-lane design; and City staff has more accurate costs of what it costs the City to build roads, etc. With regard to question 4-1, Mr. Melburg stated that civic center construction will begin whenever Council chooses to. Phase 1 will cost approximately $1,208,000, Phase 2 will cost approximately $6,800,000, and Phase 3 will cost approximately $1,155,000. With regard to question 5, Mr. Melburg stated that the number one priority for Benton Ranch is that 20% of the property be developed as parkland. Council policy will dictate what other uses Benton will have, ie. City Hall, Public Safety, or school site. He stated that Federal and State agencies have expressed little interest in building at Benton Ranch, although ten to twenty acres of the property would certainly accommodate them. Most of the property (80%) and all of the river front would be for public use. With regard to question 6, Mr. Melburg stated that common sense will be the guiding factor in determining where building sites are located so significant historic sites at Benton Ranch will be avoided. There will be no conflict between buildings and archaeological sites. With regard to question 7, Mr. Melburg stated that Council Member Carter's list of City priorities for infrastructure improvements does not compete financially with civic center development. Planning and Community Development Director Perry stated that many of the listed infrastructure projects will be funded by Federal Aid to Urban funds and Redevelopment funds. Mr. Perry also reviewed how capital improvement priorities, such as relocation of the corporation yard, construction of a firing range, Convention Center expansion, and infrastructure improvements at the Municipal Airport for industry, etc. may be funded from general funds, Economic Development Administration funds, and operating utility funds, etc. Mr. Melburg noted that not only does the civic center compete with these projects, they compete with each other. He added that either civic center site will take money. Mr. Melburg submitted a color map of the Benton Ranch area depicting the riverfront, floodplain, and undevelopable areas. Noting that there is some concern about the estimates for improvement costs, he explained that the firm was working under a time constraint, and they tried to be as accurate as possible. Council Member Buffum questioned how the construction cost estimates for the concrete piles for Benton Ranch were arrived at and asked why only two soil samples were taken. She said one contractor informed her that there is a three to one cost difference for the concrete piles. Mr. Melburg explained how the firm arrived at their cost estimates. He also explained that the number of soil samples taken was a function of time and money. Mr. Melburg stated that it is conceivable that costs may be more on Benton Ranch than on Parkview, but maybe not. Council Member Buffum noted that if a campus style facility is b uilt on Benton Ranch, there could be four to five acres of parking. Mr. Melburg concurred. Redevelopment Agency Member Ernst expressed concern about abandoning the Parkview site and the effect that would have on property values and loss of tax money for the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Perry stated that Parkview Avenue is part of a proposed redevelopment area and the plan to construct a Parkview Avenue Bridge has been proposed whether or not City Hall is built there. He said homes in the area were developed 30 to 40 years ago, and he pointed out that the current City Hall has not kept the value of housing in the area from sliding. Ms. Ernst asked if the traffic study on Highway 273 included the projections for a civic center site on Benton Ranch. Mr. Perry said no, the numbers were based on proposed residential traffic based on a tentative subdivision map. Council Member Dahl asked if Benton Ranch would remain a feasible choice if the Auditorium Street bridge did not become a reality? Mr. Melburg said no; however, he noted that the Police and Fire Departments have indicated they would have no problem locating at Benton Ranch even without a bridge or connecting street to Hilltop Drive. He stated that a bridge would be necessary by Phase 3. Council Member Dahl pointed out that, because of the necessity for a bridge at Parkview, the Report shows civic center costs at Parkview reaching $21 million and Benton Ranch $9 million. He explained that even without a City Hall at Parkview, Parkview Avenue needs a bridge. Council Member Dahl said that if bridge sites were prioritized, it would be Parkview. Agency Member Rutledge stated that some of the estimated costs for infrastructure improvements are low. He asked if more studies should be prepared and an engineering company without any possible conflict of interest hired. Mr. Melburg stated that cost estimates were received from the Department of Public Works in cooperation with other companies. However, it is hard to estimate without a design. Planning Commissioner Chapin stated that there is not enough data in the preliminary report to make a decision. He stated that environmental, economic, political, and social impacts must be studied and a master plan prepared for both the Benton Ranch and Parkview Avenue sites. Noting that the Park Marina Riverfront plan was based on a 25 year projection, Planning Commissioner Anthis asked what time projection was used for Benton Ranch and Parkview. Mr. Melburg stated that the impacts are projected for 50 to 100 years and in terms of development, it is a 20-year projected use. Recreation and Parks Commissioner Klaseen noted that we are still talking about possibilities; and once the decision is made, then plans can be made. Noting that open land at Benton Ranch is suffering from urban pressure, Commissioner Klaseen suggested that the plan for Benton Ranch move forward speedily. She said that Benton Ranch would be an ideal location for both City Hall and parkland. Liz Reginato, 672 State Street, stated that because of the controversy surrounding the site for a civic center, a city-wide election should be held to decide the matter. She said that Benton Ranch is a pristine unspoiled area and she has never seen a City take prime land for a City Hall. Trygve Sletteland, 1666 Ridge Drive, representing the Sacramento Valley River Trust, stated that the Trust is not opposed to locating the civic center at Benton Ranch under the following conditions: a total of 80% of the property be used in perpetuity as open space, museums, etc., and dedication made by modifying the deed restrictions or by that means which will hold up in court; and the City abandon its plan for a bridge across the Sacramento River from Auditorium Drive to Benton Ranch. Mr. Sletteland stated that funds will not likely be forthcoming and the bridge would destroy the riparian habitat, etc. He added, however, that a pedestrian bridge would be okay. Mr. Sletteland added that a detailed traffic study is necessary. Russ Wade, asked Council to consider what the young people of Redding want and how the decision will impact them. He suggested Council ask the young people if they want government buildings at Benton Ranch or if they want a green belt and park to enhance the City. Frances Jenkins, 2652 Sharon, stated that she is speaking on behalf of many of her neighbors. Ms. Jenkins agreed that a new City Hall is necessary. She said that the number of acres staff has stated is necessary for a civic center at Benton are misleading. Explaining that the Parkview property was originally designed for County, State, and Federal buildings, Ms. Jenkins asked if the same is planned for Benton. She conveyed that she is not opposed to building on Benton Ranch as long as education and culture are served. Ms. Jenkins opined that the suggested value of land at Parkview is questionable. Mike Atchison, 445 Woodcliff, stated that the matter should be looked at with fiscal responsibility. Does it cost more to build at Parkview or Benton Ranch? Mr. Atchison opined that it will cost more to build on the existing site, Parkview. He conveyed that Redding has little to attract people to the downtown area; thus a park and museums should be developed to tie into the Riverfront Plan. Mr. Atchison opined that a civic center at Benton Ranch will give the City the most options. He noted that the vast majority of people want Benton to be used for parkland purposes, Sacramento River Trail and wilderness, and a bridge and civic center will hasten park development. Robert E. Lee, 3510 Bechelli Lane, asked what will happen to Lake Redding Park if a hydro plant is constructed there. Mr. Lee stated that Mayor Johannessen does have a conflict of interest. Mayor Johannessen conveyed that he has not bought or sold real estate in the City of Redding since becoming a Council Member. Ted Willis, 4177 Villa Drive, asked if the Benton Ranch property was keystoned. He added that it is expensive to build on property that has been dredged. Mr. Melburg replied that dredged land will be avoided except for landscaping and parking facilities. Dr. Grady Fort, 3450 Pioneer Lane, conveyed that he was part of a study group reviewing the Benton Ranch site. Dr. Fort conveyed that the group was unanimous in its decision to support a civic center at Benton Ranch. He explained that it is an attractive site, the parkland will be protected, and the Parkview property may be turned into income producing property. The corporation yard and softball fields may be retained at Parkview and traffic on Parkview will not be aggravated. Luke Mutchie, 4371 Clay Street, asked if the civic center at Benton Ranch would be subject to flooding. Mr. Melburg showed where the floodplain area is located and explained that the civic center would not be placed in the 100-year floodplain. Mr. Mutchie stated that if only 20% of the Ranch is used for a civic center, he supports a civic center at Benton. He stated that Redding is growing and bridges across the river are necessary. Bill Ulch, Ridge Street, asked how much acreage is available on Benton Ranch and if the site on Parkview is too small for a civic center. Mr. Melburg stated that there are 200+ acres at Benton Ranch, and the Parkview area is not too small. Mr. Melburg conveyed that the Parkview site could be zoned commercial or office space. Russell Hunt, 2058 Sonoma Street, noted that staff has proposed that government agencies be located together. He stated that there are 34 agencies located near Parkview Avenue and there are only two near Benton Ranch. Mr. Hunt questioned the true value of land at Parkview. He stated that the architect's report is biased. He opined that a civic center at Benton Ranch is unappropriate and a park should be created to help stabilize the economy and attract tourists. Glen Asher, 748 Delta Street, conveyed that Redding is very beautiful and unique. He said that he supports a civic center at Benton Ranch and would also like to see it developed for young people and education. Jack Lynch, 1808 Del Mar, supported the civic center and parkland at Benton Ranch and requested Council make a decision based on vision. Dick Gray, 1607 Regent, conveyed that he would like to see a museum complex on Benton Ranch and expressed his support for a park at Benton Ranch. Mr. Gray noted that New York and San Francisco are known for their parks, and Redding has the same opportunity. John Carr stated that the Report is not objective. He expressed surprise that Benton Ranch is being desecrated and stated that the City should take responsibility for maintaining and caring for the property until a decision is made. Mr. Carr suggested that the homeless not be referred to by the term vagrant. Ted Klaseen, 2295 Oak Ridge, stated that Benton Ranch should be developed as a park and a civic center. He opined that the two are compatible and will compliment each other. Betty Davis, 2845 Freebridge, stated that office buildings in a park will create a conflict between the types of people using the facilities and create a traffic hazard. The civic center should remain at Parkview and Benton Ranch developed as parkland. Vernon Packer, 759 Delta Street, conveyed that the City should complete projects which have already been started. Mr. Packer pointed out that cultures are remembered by their edifices. He asked if we want our culture remembered by government edifices or parks. Ms. Jenkins thanked Council for allowing the citizens of Redding the opportunity to speak and be heard. Recreation and Parks Commissioner Tomasin also thanked Council for the opportunity to speak. He conveyed that it is the Commission's objective to beautify Redding. Commissioner Tomasin pointed out that the City would not be able to build a park if they did not own the property. Riverfront land is necessary to continue the Sacramento River Trail and without vision and the property, it cannot be developed. He favors a civic center located at Benton Ranch. Planning Commissioner Burrell expressed his thanks to Council for giving the Planning Commission the opportunity to participate tonight. He conveyed the importance of both the Planning Commission and Council remaining open minded and continuing to investigate both sites. Commissioner Burrell suggested that a detailed traffic analysis and traffic patterns study be prepared. Commissioner Burrell said it is the responsibility of all to take a hard look at what it will mean for Redding 50 to 100 years from now. Planning Commissioner Anthis stressed that this is a major decision and it is necessary to plan for the long-term. He conveyed that a civic center site should be chosen because it is the right place, and political pressure should be avoided. Commissioner Anthis said the riverfront is our most cherished asset. He urged that the best site be chosen because that is the place it needs to be. Council Member Buffum stated that Council is being asked to make a decision on preliminary information. She conveyed that vision is important. Council Member Buffum pointed out that an election is very expensive, and may not be any more democratic than what is happening at the town meeting tonight. Planning Commissioner Potter stated that it is not realistic to only look 20-years into the future, we must look further. He pointed out that there will eventually be another bridge across the Sacramento River or else traffic will not be able to move north. Commissioner Potter opined that there is not enough input to make an informed decision. Both locations should be studied further and traffic counts and projections prepared. Planning Commissioner Ogden suggested that other sites be considered. He noted that this is only a preliminary study. Mayor Johannessen thanked everyone for attending the meeting, for their input, time, and commitment. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 8:45 p.m., Mayor Johannessen declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ City Clerk 2/28/89