A private developer and a former city planning manager could be the next to join the Redding Planning Commission

Neither of the prospective candidates mentioned environmental concerns in their applications, a perspective that’s been missing since two commissioners were replaced last year.

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
Picure of large building with fountain and grass in front
Redding City Hall. Photo by Annelise Pierce.

At tomorrow’s city council meeting, members will vote to approve or deny Mayor Mike Littau’s picks for two open seats on the Redding Planning Commission: real estate developer Joshua Johnson and Kent Manuel, who used to be Redding’s planning manager.

Both candidates have histories in city government. Johnson recently served for six months on the Redding City Council after he was appointed to fill the remainder of Michael Dacquisto’s term in 2024. His attempt to retain that seat through the election process was unsuccessful. Manuel has extensive experience working up the ranks of the city’s planning department — according to his application, he moved up from intern to management over the course of a three-decade career in city government. Since his 2016 retirement, Manuel has continued to contribute to city initiatives as a contractor.

Vacancies on the Redding Planning Commission are the result of the recent resignation of former Beverly Hills police officer Blake Nance, and the end of term for commissioner Michelle Goedert. If approved by the council, Manuel and Johnson will serve on the planning commission until 2029 and 2030 respectively.

The membership of the planning commission has been the subject of some concern since commissioners Aaron Hatch and Brandi Greene were replaced about a year ago by former mayor Jack Munns. During much of his time as commissioner, Hatch was a board member of the Shasta Land Trust while Greene is an environmental scientist and winemaker. Both commissioners offered preservation-forward perspectives, focused on protecting Shasta’s natural landscape during tense commission discussions on development. 

At the time, city council member Erin Resner emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance of interests on the commission. “Seeking diversity of perspectives is not about checking a box,” she said last year as the council discussed Munns’ appointments to the commission, “it’s about recognizing that different life experiences, professions and viewpoints contribute to more balanced and thoughtful decision making.”

Excluding the two soon-to-be vacant seats, the current commission consists of members with connections to development, real estate, the Shasta County Republican Central Committee, an insurance company, and infrastructure engineering. 

Addressing the most recent vacancies, former commissioner Hatch told Shasta Scout that the commission, which weighs in on a number of development projects including comprehensives ones like riverfront planning, is intended to serve the entire community through independent judgment, balance, and a diversity of viewpoints.

“That means weighing long-term community impacts alongside near-term development pressure, and listening to the broad array of interests of the community,” Hatch added, calling the new appointments an opportunity for the council to reinforce a standard of diverse perspectives. Hatch also spoke highly of Goedert, saying she will leave big shoes to fill on the commission.

“She was an excellent Commissioner because she consistently evaluated projects from multiple perspectives, listened to the needs of the community, and understood the Commission’s role within the broader framework of local governance,” Hatch said.

The city has disclosed both Kent’s and Johnson’s applications to join the commission. In his cover letter, Manuel wrote that “achieving a proper balance between existing and new development is vitally important. That balance must necessarily consider the practical needs of the development community and the real and perceived impacts to existing neighborhoods.”

Johnson’s application did not include a cover letter, but in response to an essay question he wrote “I care that our city grows well and that the government enables healthy growth without unnecessary friction, which is why I want to bring my development, building, and real estate experience to the board at this time.”


Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.

Author

Nevin reports for Shasta Scout as a member of the California Local News Fellowship.

Comments (3)
  1. Planning Commissions have no discretionary decision-making authority—they make recommendations to the City Council, and the Council makes the decisions. Nonetheless, the Mayor has made his agenda clear with his two candidates, and the rest of the City Councilors will let us know if they concur.

    Barring any surprises, it looks like the agenda doesn’t include any preservation-minded speed bumps to development beyond the usual self-imposed political and social hinderances to outside investment.

  2. Same as it ever was. Commissioners like Aaron Hatch and Brandi Greene were anomalies, which is why we have miles of ugly, sprawling growth we can’t afford to maintain and nobody wants to move to. We’re geographically larger than San Francisco with a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the tax base. Sixty-some square miles is a lot of water pipes, sewer pipes, electrical lines, and street to maintain. Not to mention area to patrol, miles for garbage trucks to drive, etc.

    • What you wrote makes a lot of sense to me, and they keep building more homes. Save our forests and start cleaning up the areas from the Carr fire and replanting.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

In your inbox every weekday morning.

Close the CTA

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING!

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Find Shasta Scout on all of your favorite platforms, including Instagram and Nextdoor.