At tense Redding Planning Commission meeting, neighbors near proposed county correctional facility push back

The first Redding Planning Commission meeting of the year was unusually full as members discussed a thorny topic: zoning changes that would facilitate the building of a proposed county-owned correctional facility on Eastside Road, directly abutting a residential neighborhood. 

On the evening of Jan. 13, members of the public filled the chambers of Redding City Hall, many to express their opposition to the project’s construction — which, according to the terms of a contract brokered between the County of Shasta and an architectural firm — could theoretically include a day reporting facility for people convicted of low level crimes, a reentry facility for those finishing their state terms, and a full scale jail, built some time in the future. 

But only four of the seven commissioners were in attendance at the meeting and they could not come to a unanimous consensus on how to move forward, even after a long and arduous debate. As a result, the issue will either be discussed again by the commission at a future meeting, City Attorney Christian Curtis indicated, or be brought before Redding’s City Council for the final say. 

Last night’s meeting was just the latest in several tense confrontations between Redding and Shasta’s governments and a coalition of angry neighbors, as the correctional project continues to move forward in what will likely be a years-long process. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, Ashley Wayman, one of the neighborhood’s lead organizers, announced that the group is working with attorneys to fight the establishment of this facility. 

“Our legal counsel officially served you about an hour before the meeting started. And so we just want to let you know that we are very serious about opposing this,” she said addressing city officials. 

The commission advises the city council on some matters related to city planning, including proposed zoning changes for city-owned land. According to California law, cities are required to appoint planning commissions to help strategize on these decisions but commissioners are not legally empowered to make zoning decisions themselves, although they can issue final rulings on some other matters. 

The objective of last night’s meeting was for commissioners to decide whether or not to recommend rezoning a tract of land on Eastside road, changing it’s designation from “heavy industry” and “parks” to “public facility or institutional,” a change which would allow a correctional facility to be built. Curtis prefaced the meeting by saying that according to the California Constitution, a county is not bound by the zoning restrictions imposed by a city. Therefore, the zoning decision that Redding’s city council will ultimately make, he claimed, would have no effect on whether Shasta County can move forward on this project. “The legal effect here down the road really is going to be what some private owner might be able to do,” Curtis said, in the event that Shasta County sold the facility to a private owner sometime in the future.

His comment raised the obvious question of why the city wants to rezone the land at all if doing so would have no impact on the proposed county project at hand. The county leased the plot of land from the city late last year in an agreement that specifically spells out that the county can buy the land from the city but only if one or more custody facilities is built and operated for a specific time period. 

In response to community feedback during the meeting, some commissioners expressed their own clear concerns about the project. They also reiterated to the audience, whose tones and emotions were running high, that city council makes the final ruling on zoning regulations. 

“The council has already asserted that they are in charge of what’s happening,” said engineer Russ Wenham, the commission’s chair. “We are in the most awkward, unusual figurehead role here … It’s just one of the quirks. Sometimes the legal processes don’t quite line up.” 

Another commissioner, commercial realtor Leslie Williem, specifically took issue with the fact that the city entered a lease agreement with the county when the exact scope of the proposed facility, which currently ranges greatly, has yet to be determined. 

“They put the cart before the horse,” Williem said. 

The commissioners discussed at length what to do. They could vote to recommend the rezoning which would align with the stated perspective of city staff, or vote to recommend denying rezoning — validating the desires of many neighbors in the audience. They could also vote to make no recommendation, which is what would happen anyway if they couldn’t come to a unanimous decision. Whatever their decision was, the final zoning decision would be left with the city council regardless, they reasoned, providing a future opportunity for neighbors to address city council members on the zoning decision.

After a tense debate, three commissioners — Wenham, Williem, and developer Luke Miner — voted to move the issue forward to the council with no recommendation, but the three were not enough to form a majority vote of the Planning Commission.

Former Beverly Hills police officer Blake Nance was the one dissenting vote, expressing confusion as he bemoaned the complexity of the legal process. At one point, he attempted to make a motion to urge the city council to withdraw from the lease entirely, something that attorney Curtis pointed out is not within the power of the commission.

As referenced by both the outspoken neighbors and commissioners themselves, the negotiations between Redding and Shasta over the land have been fraught from the very beginning and tensions have been exacerbated by what some residents see as a lack of transparency. 

From the perspective of the neighbors, they were not adequately informed of the possibility that this correctional facility would be built in proximity to their neighborhood, with some noting that the first time a public hearing for rezoning the property was scheduled, late last year, only a few residents were notified. The city deferred the item at that meeting, citing a failure to appropriately legally notice the hearing.

To make matters more confusing, some of the discussion prior to the lease of Eastside land happened in the Redding City Council’s open session, while other discussions happened during closed session, something that’s allowed under California’s public meeting law for property negotiations. Concurrently the county was also discussing the idea of a new carceral facility during separate public meetings of the County Board of Supervisors. 

Why neighbors oppose the proposed facilities

At last night’s meeting, several neighbors expressed that they aren’t opposed to incarceration facilities in principle if they provides rehabilitation options for people with recent convictions, given the dysfunction and safety concerns at the county’s current jail. What they are opposed to is the location, they said, urging both Redding and Shasta to reconsider where this facility will be sited. 

For the county’s part, Troy Bartolomei, Shasta County’s Public Works Director, suggested that as part of the Environmental Impact Report process — a legal step which involves listening sessions with the public — the county may decide that the Eastside Road location isn’t the right site for what they want to eventually build. “There will be site-alternative studies done. It doesn’t mean, because this lease is here, that this will be the site,” Bartolomei said. 

Sheriff Michael Johnson also addressed the crowd during the public hearing. He acknowledged that many of the neighbors’ concerns about safety, wildlife, and their allegedly plummeting property values are of legitimate concern. But he took issue with what he called “conspiracy theories” promoting the idea that the county’s movement towards a custody facility at the site was made behind closed doors, with the intention of shutting people out. 

“It was no secret deal. I came and spoke before the city council in open session. I spoke at the board of supervisors on at least two, maybe three occasions,” Johnson told the disgruntled audience. He explained that he had heard some “misinformation” that he wanted to clear up with them in conversation but said “I was told that you folks didn’t want to speak with me.”

---

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