Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1997-10-09 241 City Council, Special Meeting October 9, 1997 Sequoia Middle School Library 1805 Sequoia Street Redding, California 5:30 p.m. The Joint Special Meeting of the City Council, Redding Planning Commission and the General Plan Task Force was called to order by Vice Mayor Murray. The following City Council Members were present: R. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, and Murray. Mayor P. Anderson's absence was excused. The following Planning Commission Members were present: Chair Bosetti, Brown, Edgren, Rutledge, Spade, Swanson, Woodward. The following General Plan Task Force Members (GPTF) were present: Chair Chapin, Brockett, Brown, Chain, Cox, Dietz, Domke, Edgren, Gannon, Graves, Harris, Harrison, Herrin, Jackson-Sofge, Klaseen, Knighten, Kutras, McLaughlin, Middleton, Salter, Scheben, Siperek, and Stubblefield. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, Deputy City Attorney Salter, Development Services Director Swanson, Planning Manager Keaney, Senior Planner Manuel, and Secretary/Stenographer Huskey. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROJECT (G-030) Vice Mayor Murray indicated that there would be a public comment period at the end of the meeting and advised those present that there would be no decisions made tonight, that this was an update by the Task Force. if there were any areas of concern or interest, Council and Commission Members were invited to voice them not as direction, but as suggestions for the Task Force's consideration. Vice Mayor Murray expressed appreciation for the long hours the Task Force had spent in this endeavor thus far. Council Member McGeorge, Council liaison to the General Plan Task Force, assured the citizens of Redding of the due diligence of the Task Force in discussing and voting on various areas of the General Plan update. He also noted that staff had not tried to lead the Task Force in any direction, but had been very helpful in making changes the Task Force had requested. He praised the efforts of Task Force members and staff and said the ultimate achievement would be a very good General Plan. Project Status Jim Chapin, Chairperson of the General Plan Task Force, observed that since the process began over two years ago, there had been excellent participation by the Task Force. Originally, meetings were scheduled about once a month, including orientation meetings with consultants and staff and public scoping meetings to receive input to aid in the development of the Issues and Alternatives Report. The Background Report(which provides a report of the City as it exists today) was prepared by staff and the consultants with input from the Task Force. Noting that the past six months had been spent developing policy recommendations, Mr. Chapin listed the documents that had been completed: Land Use Classification Scheme, Land Use Element, Urban Design Element, Natural Environment Element, Recreation Element. He said those that remained to be completed were Health and Safety, Circulation, Noise, Economic Development, and Public Facilities. Mr. Chapin explained the format of the meeting--an open, informal discussion of each goal and policy statement making changes as needed with an attempt at consensus-building. Then a show of hands vote was taken with the vote sometimes unanimous and sometimes not, but usually an overwhelming majority one way or the other. This review was time-consuming but has resulted in a Task Force that is very knowledgeable and committed to the actions it is recommending. Mr. Chapin also acknowledged the opportunity provided to the public at each meeting to make comments. The Task Force has still not dealt specifically with the land use map or recommended urban boundaries; however, this will be the focus after the basic policy recommendations are in place. 10/09/97 r- 242 Task Force Direction Howard Stubblefield, GPTF member, noted the diversity of the group and the time spent working together. As a result, Task Force members had achieved a knowledge of what they liked and what they did not regarding the issues studied. He then explained policies being developed to address major themes of the plan. Task Force members agreed that they lived in an exceptional place. Mr. Stubblefield pointed out that the brochures that promoted Redding did not show Redding, the town--they showed Redding, the hills, lake, and surrounding areas. The Task Force wanted to be sure those open hillsides, stream corridors, and views of surrounding foothills and mountains were preserved; however, Redding's assets also need to be broughtodowntown, so it is more like one place. Things need to be done to provide more continuity to the community where we live, shop, and work. One of the key concepts the Task Force had been addressing, Mr. Stubblefield indicated, was an urban expansion strategy that recognized that the citizens of Redding did not want to be in Los Angeles or Sacramento and did not want strip centers and single-family houses for mile after mile with no parks or breaks. Some of the reasons these were not desired were the costs of the infrastructure, the maintenance of the roads, and the inefficiencies for public transportation. He said Task Force members agreed that there should be mixed-use and higher-density developments provided in defined areas to maximize some of the growth. It is important to redefine Downtown as the "heart" of Redding, with there being a continuity between daytime and evening activities. An example would be of mixed uses, where there would be retail and garden-type apartments, with people living downtown instead of commuting downtown. Mr. Stubblefield emphasized that if Downtown became the heart of Redding, the Task Force felt strongly that the Park Marina area had the opportunity to become the "smile" of Redding, with that area being a prime part of the real estate to be developed in the future. He pointed out the importance of connecting what was happening with the new Civic Center, with Turtle Bay, the Bridge, Park Marina, and Downtown. The Task Force envisions pedestrian ways, bike paths, and even a trolley car with rubber wheels during certain times of the year to provide these links. The cleanup of the City, whether motels or certain neighborhoods, was mentioned as positive and necessary by Mr. Stubblefield. He cited the efforts of residents of the Garden Tract as an example and said anything that could be done through the General Plan to encourage that type of community pride or pride of ownership would be helpful. Mr. Stubblefield stressed the importance of diversifying the economic base. He related that discussions had been general in this area, although this had been touched upon many different ways, with industry and manufacturing a key part, as well as tourism and retirement. Many projects that were under way would make Redding a more desirable place to live, which, in turn, would attract people and companies with more money. The Plan was being designed to create a better community which would attract a stronger economic base. Other issues studied by the Task Force were the value of having an abundance of park sites well dispersed throughout the community, providing for open space, and defining the areas where trails should be. Trails should not necessarily be paved, but should be allowed for, thus a lot of time was put into a connected trail system. Finally, Mr. Stubblefield said Task Force members felt it was important to continue the current efforts to dress up the City by using design guidelines with a lot of attention paid to flexibility and respect for property rights. Commissioner Mark Woodward was concerned about the impact of the Task Force's work on the Planning Commission and asked how much "teeth" the work the Task Force was doing would really have. Development Services Director.Jerry Swanson responded that the recommendations of the Task 10/09/97 243 Force would have a big effect. The recommendations would be heard by the Planning Commission and ultimately heard and adopted by the City Council. As policy for the City, they would have a substantial impact on everything the City does, i.e., the ways Capital Improvement Funds were spent, the types of regulations adopted, the policies applied for new growth, park development, and all the things in the scope of planning. Mr. Woodward wondered, since this would have such an effect, if the allocation of redevelopment dollars should be held off until the completion and adoption of the General Plan update, so that those dollars would be allocated in coordination with the activities suggested by the Task Force. Vice Mayor Murray observed that the Council had been struggling with design guidelines, that there was no problem with the goals, but implementation had its own pitfalls. He said the wisdom of the Task Force was eagerly awaited. SUBSTANTIVE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Preserving Redding's Natural Assets Ms. Lynda Scheben, GPTF member, indicated that the Task Force felt it was sound policy to ensure a balance between development and the natural environment. As previously noted, there are beautiful ridge-top areas in Redding, and it is important that those be conserved, while balancing development. She reported that this was being accomplished by policies currently in the Land Use Element as follows: (1) Maintain current "Greenway" policies by protecting slopes over 20 percent and floodplain areas from development. (2) Continue existing stream corridor-protection measures by having a buffer between development projects and significant waterways and between riparian vegetation and wetlands. (3) Allow limited encroachments, particularly where encroachment will result in a superior project. This will provide some flexibility when necessary (i.e., for infrastructure, emergency roads, etc.) and when there might be a unique project design. (4) Minimize grading impacts of development on steep slopes. This will continue the current grading policies and minimize the alteration of the topography, drainage patterns, and natural vegetation of land on slopes of 8 percent or more. Ms. Scheben stated that a new policy was being added to the Community Design Element: Protect selected foothills from development that would significantly impact visual qualities. She said there were three areas being considered where it was hoped the visual qualities would be preserved through public/private purchase of land, conservation easements, limiting building heights, and also possibly requiring building materials that would blend with the topography. Those included prominent ridge tops north of Quartz Hill in the northwest part of the Planning Area, west of Mary Lake, and north of Clear Creek. Senior Planner Manuel pointed out that only one of these areas was in the current City limits, and it would be incumbent upon the City to make a statement to the County if development proposals would destroy the visual qualities of those backdrops. Commissioner Rutledge asked where the 8 percent slope figure came from and if it was cast in stone. Mr. Chapin stated that the figure was one of the hotly debated issues of the Task Force. Planning Manager Keaney explained, as an example, that the City had adopted that policy in the Westside Area Plan. The 8 percent was a cut-off that predated the General Plan Task Force. The Task Force decided to stay with that threshold. He also explained some of the problems that occurred with development on slopes above that percentage. Encourage Relatively Concentrated Development and Establish Appropriate Mix of Uses; Reestablish Downtown as the Heart of the Community Doreeta Domke, GPTF member, indicated that the Task Force had spent a great deal of time discussing ways to design the Land Use Element to encourage relatively concentrated development in some areas and establish a mix of uses. She noted the following new policies the Task Force had added to the Land Use Element: (1)Increase densities Downtown up to 50 units per acre in the core. (2) Establish incentives for mixed-use projects Downtown and other areas. (3) Allow a mix of residential densities in larger projects. (4) Allow "granny flats" in appropriate single-family areas. (5) Allow small neighborhood-serving stores and services, such as day care facilities in residential 10/09/97 244 neighborhoods. It was also recommended that the following current policy be retained in the Land Use Element: Discourage strip commercial-type development. Looking at community design, Ms. Domke reported, the Task Force strongly desired that the Downtown be reestablished as the heart of the community. To achieve that goal, the following new policies were recommended in the Community Design Element: (1) Ensure that the tallest buildings in the community are located Downtown--maximum height would be 100 feet. This would be approximately eight stories. (2) Encourage outdoor cafes and similar uses. She said it had been evidenced that people would gather in these open areas if given opportunities such as at Enterprise Park and downtown at Library Park. (3) Unify the Downtown street scene. She also pointed out a new policy included in the Land Use Element: Establish a mix of uses that complement the pedestrian concept. Commissioner Woodward asked if the Task Force had prioritized areas for undergrounding of electric distribution lines and Ms. Domke responded that it had not been done at this point. Provide Ample Parkland and Open Space Mike McLaughlin, GPTF member, detailed the following new policies added to the Recreation Element: (1) Recognize the value of locating larger parks with existing and future school sites. He noted that one of the most significant things discussed was using existing resources and merging parks with school grounds to enhance both. (2) In addition to regional parks, focus efforts on establishing neighborhood parks (1-5 acres) throughout the City. This item was discussed at great length. Regional parks were already included in the existing Recreation Element, and their importance was acknowledged; however, Task Force members strongly agreed that one- to five-acre parks throughout the community were important to provide open spaces for neighbors to enjoy. He also related the existing policies in the Recreation Element: (1) Establish a trail system, principally along the Sacramento River and stream corridors. He hoped the existing trail could be improved upon with an idea of linking the trail system as much as possible, having schools, in particular, being connected to allow students to move from one place to the other. (2) Require land dedications with development to achieve the goal. Commissioner Rutledge expressed the concern that while it was nice to have many smaller parks, the maintenance costs made it necessary to ask if they could be afforded or if a different approach was necessary. Possibly the "dreams" needed to be tempered with today's economic realities. Mr. Chapin said the Task Force had discussed these problems at length without arriving at any decisions and would look to the City Council for guidance. Senior Planner Manuel added that staff had advocated focusing on large community parks and letting the development community deal with small neighborhood parks. Task Force members had made it clear that they did not want children to have to be driven across town to go to a park. They were not necessarily advocating a tot lot in every neighborhood, recognizing the inability of the City to maintain those types of facilities, but one- to five-acre parks interspersed every couple of neighborhoods would allow access to children on bikes. He said the Task Force felt some type of open space should be provided in every subdivision for the residents living there. Mr. Rutledge was concerned that this direction would require the formation of homeowners' associations, and past history had shown that most associations were not successful. Mr. Stubblefield replied that the Task Force had spent a great deal of time discussing this, but the issue was not completed as yet. The Task Force recognized that it needed to look at ways to achieve funding. Commissioner Spade asked if combining schools and parks had been considered. Mike McLaughlin said yes, the park inventory would be enhanced by ensuring partnerships between the two. Modify the Land Use Classification System Rob Middleton, GPTF member, explained that the land use classification system was intended to clarify and fine-tune some of the existing classifications as well as establish new ones. There would be a residential classification system based on range and density to promote flexibility by: (1) allowing day care centers, churches, and public and private schools in a compatible design with the 10/09/97 • 245 neighborhood; (2) addressing better plans for infrastructure and development and (3) offering the incentives for exceptional development by keying approved project density to the level of the amenities and/or other enhancements of that particular project. The residential classification system would also: (1) establish a "regional commercial" classification to provide notice of where this type of retail can be located and to ensure that such development is unified, unlike the Dana Drive area, and (2) establish a Mixed Use Core classification for the downtown area--it ties in with the proposed policies of the Land Use Element to establish a pedestrian-friendly, relatively dense, urban core. Community Appearance Jim Chapin, GPTF member, reiterated that the Task Force strongly felt the importance of design standards and a design review system that would ensure that everyone could be as proud of the appearance of the manmade community as the natural surroundings. Some of the things that needed to be addressed were retrofit of existing arterial streets to include landscape medians, increasing right- of-way width of new arterial streets to allow for detached sidewalks and median and street-side landscape, and establishing arterial street setbacks and building heights for the overall City. He also noted the importance of beautifying community gateway areas. Paul Edgren expressed his appreciation for serving on the Task Force and applauded the City Council for appointing a cross-section of people. He related the City Manager's initial challenge that Task Force members were going on a shopping trip to buy what they wanted for their community and that the General Plan should reflect what they wanted to see. Committee members from the development community had concerns and desires they had expressed as follows: (1) Protect private property rights--number one priority. (2) Reflect incentives in the General Plan for people who would design projects containing amenities such as additional parks or open space or exceptionally good design. (3) Accept changes to the Grading Ordinance regarding erosion control, particularly the 8 percent figure. He said they were comfortable with the changes as they exist now and were very concerned that they remain the same after completion of the process. (4) Encourage the full utilization of in- place infrastructure, including possibly using financial incentives to encourage development of pocket pieces of property. (5) Provide for a complete and comprehensive review of roads, water, and sewers and the costs for these infrastructure improvements. Council Member Anderson suggested that if there were any extremely controversial items, there might need to be a minority report from the committee. Noting the scarcity of park funds and resources, he said the Council was going to have to decide what could be afforded. Mr. Edgren clarified that they felt there was not necessarily disagreement with anything in the Plan as it now exists, that things were in place, but that they wanted to be sure the City Council understood that they wanted the final General Plan to reflect what had been said. Jim Graves said the Task Force had tried to understand what the community wanted the City to look like and what the developers' contributions should be; however, the community would not be what was desired unless major thoroughfares (i.e., Cypress Avenue and Hilltop Drive) were landscaped and overhead utilities were undergrounded. These were the areas that were seen by visitors and the people in the community. He said they felt strongly that the City needed to make the commitment to fix the areas that developers had no control over. Commissioner Spade felt it was necessary to be sure the product was within our grasp economically when defining the future of the community. He agreed with where we needed to go, but wondered if it was an affordable package. He was concerned about how much was added to the cost of housing, subdivisions, or of infrastructure. Mr. Stubblefield noted that the cost had to be shared throughout the community, but the Task Force felt its responsibility was to define now what should be in place 20 years from now. The money might not be available and the improvements might not be made right now, but the Task Force was encouraged by the City Manager's approach of looking at investments that pay a return to meet future goals. Areas need to be defined now and rehabilitated as money becomes available or it will never happen. 10/09/97 r 246 Vice Mayor Murray expressed concern about the degree of specificity in the General Plan and suggested the Task Force choose the language carefully to maintain a "general" plan, allowing the specifics to be dealt with in "enabling ordinances." Senior Planner Manuel provided a brief overview of work still needing to be completed, including: (I) preparation of the Public Facilities and Services Element, which is intended to address what the General Plan will cost the community and look at ways of funding capital expenditures, etc.; (2) preparation of the Circulation Element, regarding arterial streets, bikeways, medians, landscape, and narrowing street sections in residential subdivisions; (3) preparation of the Land Use Map, which will depict things such as what the City and its circulation system will look like and how many people can be accommodated; (4) discussions of urban boundary issues; and (5) decisions on where major retail centers and high-density areas should be located. He recommended that the Task Force, Planning Commission, and City Council meet again before the Christmas holidays to review the Land Use Map before the Task Force begins its parcel-by-parcel review. Open Discussion/Questions and Answers • Commissioner Rutledge agreed that the City Council, Planning Commission, and Task Force need to meet again and felt there would be much more interest and input from the community after the Land Use Map was prepared. Vice Mayor Murray said his only goal was widespread community involvement, which would be healthy and productive. He noted the importance of a debate over the interrelationship between the City limits and the sphere of influence and what the community wants. Continuing, Vice Mayor Murray said there were tradeoffs that need to be debated by the community between having a larger sphere of influence around the City limits, with the intent through the planning process over the next 20 to 40 years of expanding the boundaries of the City to that sphere boundary, versus having the sphere boundary smaller and accommodating the exact same population. There would be impacts on air quality, the road systems, transportation systems, and infrastructure costs and there would be people on both sides of the issue. Vice Mayor Murray encouraged the Task Force to arrive at a consensus document through compromise, remembering that the community is diverse in nature. He thanked Task Force members for their efforts. PUBLIC COMMENT Fran Jenkins, 2652 Sharon Street, Redding, acknowledged the hard work of the Task Force members; however, in spite of what she had heard this evening, she believed there was insufficient consideration in the area of private property rights and felt it would still exist in the work they would present to the City Council. Allan Dunk, 8836 Knobhill Circle, Redding, noted that he had regularly attended these meetings, often being the only member of the public, and supported the idea of getting the public more involved. He also felt the Council could give the Task Force more guidance on if it was headed in the right direction. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 6:48 p.m., Vice Mayor Murray adjourned the meeting. APPROVED: ---- KEN MURRA , Vice Manor ATTEST d.a, 'v ' .,d CONNIE ST' OHMAYi'. ' , City Clerk 10/09/97