| |
MEETING OF THE SITE SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE
HEALTH SCIENCES & UNIVERSITY CENTER
SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRINITY JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
September 3, 2002
Summary Notes
CALL TO ORDER: Chair, W. G. Garland, called
the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. in the Shasta College Board Room.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Susan Hartley Becker, Shasta Health Care, Bill Cox, Cox
Real Estate Consultants, Inc. (Technical Consultant), Janice Cunningham,
Cox Real Estate Consultants, Inc. (Technical Consultant), Jan Dinkel,
Shasta College, Dean, Center for Human, Development (Ex-officio Member)
Jim Elkins, PACE Civil, Inc. (Technical Consultant), W. G. Garland,
Shasta College, Vice President, Student Services, and Cultural Diversity
Programs (Chairperson), Robin Glasco, Shasta Community Health Center,
Michele Goedert, Viva Downtown Redding, Richard Green, Economic
Development Corporation of Shasta County, Maggie John, Blood
Source—North State
Linda McBride, Director of Early Childhood Education, Shasta County
Office of Education, Wayne Nadon, Nadon Management, Inc. (Project
Manager)
Ellen Peres, Shasta College, Vice President, Administrative, Services
(Ex-officio Member), Dan Rossetto, Nichols, Melburg & Rossetto
(Architect)
Andrew Solkovits, DO, Mountain View Family Medical Group, Mary Leas
Stegall, Redding City Council
Members Absent: Don Chapman, Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce
Charles Cooley, DDS, MS, Gary Engell, Downtown Redding Business
Association, Mac Hayward, Redding Rancheria, Tribal Council
CALL FOR REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK TO
ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA: Mr. Garland asked for any requests from
the audience to speak to any item on the agenda. Doug Treadway asked to
speak. He welcomed and thanked the committee for the work they were
about to do. He reported that the College had sold the first issuance of
the bonds. He commented that the college was on its way to building the
new Centers (the University Center, I-5 Technology Center and Health Sciences & University Center). He again thanked the committee for their commitment
and willingness to serve. Dr. Treadway left the meeting after his
comments.
DISCUSSIONS WITH CONSULTANTS ON PROCESS FOR
EVALUATING SITE: Mr. Garland reviewed the following items with
the committee:
The committee is not a decision making body. Its purpose is to assist
the Board in making its decision. It is comprised of a diverse group of
people, and its goal is to reach a consensus on how our community would
feel about the sites.
· The idea is to make the process inclusive, not exclusive.
· The committee wanted to see all site proposals, so there was no
prescreening. Committee members received copies of all site proposals.
· The search is to have a downtown focus. Even though proposed sites are
citywide, the college desires the site to be near an acute care
hospital, which both are at downtown locations.
Ms. Stegall asked for discussion on the downtown focus. The
bond was presented to voters as “downtown.” There was some discussion as
to what constitutes downtown, i.e. per the Downtown Specific Plan as
opposed to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Ms. Stegall and Ms. Goedert
expressed concern about the downtown focus and felt, for the sake of
time, that any proposal not downtown specific should be taken out of
consideration. Mr. Green stated that the properties that did not qualify
as “downtown” would naturally score lower and be self-eliminating. He
felt the committee should proceed using the matrix. Mr. Cox stated that
if the committee did not feel confident with the tool at any point, even
at the end of scoring, the matrix results could be tossed. The matrix is
a tool to help reach a collective decision. What is important is that
the committee reaches a decision based on the consensus of the group as
a whole and not on individual opinions. It was decided to proceed using
the matrix as a tool scoring all properties. At each step the committee
would be polled for a feeling of confidence in the tool.
CLOSED SESSION: The matrix was used to
score each property on visibility,
accessibility, proximity to an acute care hospital, collaboration
potential, aesthetics and surroundings, and overall site evaluation.
Characteristics were described, ratings of 1-5 were given by a show of
hands and tabulated, and a score was given to each characteristic for
each property. After scoring each characteristic, committee members were
asked about confidence in the matrix tool.
Prior to sharing notable obstacles and scoring on overall site
evaluation, there was some discussion on disclosing prices of the
properties. Ms. Goedert felt that having pricing information would be
helpful to committee members on reaching a decision. Mr. Cox noted that
requested prices would most likely not be the price offered. The
consultants’ role is to be sure that the college does not pay over fair
market value. Each site has a deferred level of infrastructure that will
affect the cost. The role of the committee is advisory based on a
collective wisdom. The committee will not have all the answers on price
until the properties have gone through due process by the technical
committee. This decision should rest with the Board of Trustees.
Following are notable obstacles noted by committee members prior to
voting on overall site evaluation:
Downtown Mall Site: Insufficient parking available; time and cost to
demolish existing buildings will be an extra expense; small parcel size;
safety issues; problems with traffic patterns; unknown if STIP monies
will be available; no railroad overpass.
Hartnell Avenue and Shotwick Site: Residents’ issue with increased
traffic (it was stated that this issue has been resolved); planned
development—houses are part of rezoning, property owners want to get rid
of planned development; site is not near an acute care hospital; site
does not have easy access for users; question of room for expansion.
Hilltop (near Lake Blvd.) Site: Site is not near an acute care hospital;
site does not have easy access for users; aesthetics are poor; site has
been before City Council as a “not in my backyard” issue.
Shasta View and Hwy. 44 Site: No bus service—if service were to become
available it still would not run after 7 p.m.; site is not near an acute
care hospital; there are known environmental issues regarding the
wetlands.
East Cypress and Victor Site: Site has a lot split application in
process; site is not near an acute care hospital; poor visibility;
problems with traffic congestion; site is also subject to “not in my
backyard” issues.
Union Pacific Site: Site may have unknown environmental problems;
parking space needs to be developed; noise pollution from trains, growth
potential is questionable; emissions/exhaust/
pollution problems.
Park Marina—Wards Site: Site is not a landmark location; question as to
what County will do; site is limited or has no room for expansion; it is
known that there will be heavy costs for
development; part of the site is offered as a lease, currently to the
County, and would be a shared site—shared property is definitely not
landmark property.
Redding Medical Center—West Site: Site requires purchase of other lots
which may be expensive; parcel size is limited; there may be
environmental issues involved with gas station lot; parking may not be
sufficient; may exacerbate an adversarial situation with Mercy Hospital.
It was noted that Mercy Hospital might view this as an opportunity to
collaborate with Redding Medical Center and Shasta College as they have
on other issues.
Butte Street Site: An oil company had been located on this site, which
may present environmental issues (it was noted that the property has
been cleaned); problems with traffic congestion—ingress/egress;
Auditorium Drive plans go through the site. It was noted that this could
make the property more attractive.
Market Street Site: The size of the lot is limited; parking space is not
available; problems with traffic congestion; poor visibility.
Liberty Street Site: The site is on a steep, slopping lot; no potential
for expansion; parcel size; problems with traffic congestion.
Using the matrix tool, the following sites were selected as the top
four:
1. Redding Medical Center—West
2. Downtown Mall
3. Union Pacific
4. Butte Street
Mr. Cox asked if the committee had confidence that the matrix selection
reflected the consensus of the committee. Mr. Green did not feel that
the Downtown Mall site should have scored that high. There was some
discussion of the site. The site could be a risk, but it could also have
great perks if redevelopment occurs.
Mr. Cox asked if the committee’s concern regarding the downtown focus
was answered. The committee agreed that downtown sites were naturally
selected by the matrix criteria. It was noted that the Butte Street site
is not officially downtown, but it was determined that it was
sufficiently close.
· The committee requested that the Board of Trustees be made aware that
the original initiative stated “downtown.”
· The committee also requested that the notable obstacles be brought to
the Board’s attention.
It was the collective decision of the committee to forward the four
sites of: 1) Redding Medical Center--West, 2) Downtown Mall, 3) Union
Pacific, and 4) Butte Street to the Shasta College Board of Trustees for
consideration as the future site of the Shasta College Health Sciences & University Center.
RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION: Mr. Garland
thanked the committee for their work.
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING: (Recommendation
reached; no further meetings required.)
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 5:55
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Roseanna L. Finmand
Recorder
|
