Despite Ongoing Public Concern Council Selects MIG/Populous To Lead Redding Riverfront Planning 
MIG will facilitate an update to the City’s Riverfront Specific Plan, a legally binding document that will guide future Council decisions on how approximately 500 acres of riverfront land will be conserved and developed. A number of Native community members and environmental advocates opposed the proposal.
After almost two-and-a-half hours of presentation, discussion, and public comment, Redding Council members Jack Munns, Tenessa Audette and Julie Winter voted to select the national design firm MIG to facilitate a long-needed update to a legally binding document known as the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan.
The Council’s vote empowers City staff to negotiate contract specifics, including what community engagement will occur, without further Council review or public input.
Council members Michael Dacquisto and Mark Mezzano opposed the decision, with Dacquisto citing concerns about future development at the riverfront and Mezzano expressing opposition to spending approximately $1.25 million for the project.
Updating the 30-year-old Redding Riverfront Specific Plan and a related Environmental Impact Report will be funded with federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) money.
Prior to the vote, a number of community members expressed ongoing concerns about the need for public involvement. Many specifically opposed MIG’s inclusion of the architectural design firm Populous, Inc. as a subcontractor in the planning process.
Populous became known to the community in the fall of 2021 when, along with partners K2 Development Companies, Turtle Bay Exploration Park, and the McConnell Foundation, the design firm submitted a proposal to master plan, buy, and partially develop approximately 200 acres of land at the Redding riverfront, including the Redding Rodeo and Civic Auditorium grounds.
That proposal triggered six months of community workshops and feedback before being “resoundingly rejected” by both the Council and citizens last year, as retired Shasta County planner Bill Walker reminded the Council last night, before expressing strong opposition to Populous’ involvement in the planning process.
“I hope you understand that planning is as much an art as a science,” Walker said. “You don’t just feed data and numbers in and out pops a plan, the consultant makes value judgments, establishes priorities and integrates and balances parts of the plan, so the choice of a consultant is very important. If a painter painted a picture for you and you thought it was ugly, would you go back to that same painter and ask them to paint a better picture?”
During Council discussions, Audette, Munns and Winter noted the public’s concern about Populous’ involvement, but did not share it, instead repeatedly seeking to clarify for the community that the contract with MIG relates only to land planning, not land sale or development.
Notably, the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan is a legally binding planning document that will determine many specifics of future development decisions for riverfront land.
Even though Populous’ role in the project includes facilitating community engagement, Audette indicated that the organization’s previous proposal for land development wasn’t relevant, saying that a city-led contract for riverfront planning is completely different than a development proposal and essentially a fresh start.
Community members argued the opposite, saying that the inclusion of Populous, an organization whose ideas for riverfront development are already widely known and opposed, doesn’t allow for a “clean slate” approach to the riverfront planning process.
Speakers also mentioned that the Council shouldn’t wipe clean or forget the six months of significant community feedback already received on riverfront development, including the significant concerns of local Native people and environmental advocates.
As Radley Davis (Pit River) explained to the Council again last night, riverfront land in the area now known as Redding holds particular cultural and historical significance to the Wintu people, who are the original stewards of local riverfront land and who continue to live here today.
Throughout the proposal presentation, Redding’s Development Services Director Jeremy Pagan and MIG principal Dan Amsden, appeared deeply aware of Native community members’ concerns, repeatedly emphasizing that the City’s wishes to include Tribal voices in the riverfront planning process.
Pagan added that MIG’s proposal was chosen, in part, because it includes the Indigenous community-led urban design and architecture firm Tawaw, as a facilitator of community engagement, particularly the engagement of local Tribes.
It’s an approach to Tribal inclusion that some say indicates a significant gap in the basic cultural understanding needed to work productively with the Wintu Tribe and other local Native peoples on riverfront planning moving forward.
Responding to Shasta Scout’s questions after the meeting, Kenwani’cahee Kravitz (Wintu, Madesi Band of Pit River), said that deciding to hire a particular outside Native consultation group without first consulting local Native people is wrong.
“As Native people, we understand protocols and honor,” Kravitz explained. “I would never assume to go to someone else’s homelands and engage in any type of work without having been invited by the people themselves. This is our way,” she continued, “which is the customary norm for most of our Indigenous relatives here on this continent.”
Jonathon Freeman (Chichimeca), Co-director of the Native Roots Network, shares similar sentiments. He told Shasta Scout that the City’s approach right now appears “more concerned with the optics of inclusion,” and added that MIG’s choice to subcontract with Populous will make it harder for local Native people to trust other subcontractors on the project, including Tawaw.
“They may have folks who have awesome expertise, who really listen and frame things well and advocate for Native people in the planning process,” Freeman explained. “We just don’t know and we were not included in that process to select them. . . Just because they’re Native doesn’t mean that they’re going to represent the people here well.”
“This is a real call for all of us to be heavily involved in the process moving forward,” Freeman added.
Resources:
- Watch the MIG proposal to the Council here (30 minutes.)
- See MIG’s proposal here.
- Learn more about the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan here.
Do you have a correction to this story? You can submit it here. Do you have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org
Author
Related Articles
Flight logs shed only minor light on CHP arrest of Shasta man alleged to have illegal weapons, bunker
No charges have been filed in court against a man arrested by the California Highway Patrol in January. Flight logs obtained by Shasta Scout reveal little more than what the California Highway Patrol has already said by press release, that the search of a private property as part of an “illicit cannabis cultivation operation” revealed weapons and an underground bunker — leading to an arrest.
Shasta Elections Office provides deadlines for filing arguments for or against Measure B
A controversial ballot measure related to elections is still facing a legal challenge. In the meantime, the community is invited to submit arguments for or against the measure for possible inclusion in the voter information guide for the June 2026 election.
Cal’s Books reopens after flooding threatened permanent closure last year
The beloved local bookstore was bought by a group of young people hoping to save it from permanently closing. They were able to gather enough funds to buy the store from its previous owner and reopen.