Did the Shasta County Board of Supervisors Put the Cart Before the Horse? Adjacent Residential Neighborhood Doesn’t Want a Large Jail Facility in Their Backyard
- Elisa Ballard
- Dec 4, 2025
- 8 min read
Rezoning of 90-acre property at 7251 Eastside Road in Redding for a large correctional and rehabilitation campus hasn’t been accomplished yet; however, the County has already leased the land from the City of Redding and appropriated funds for a Conceptual Plan and Environmental Review
Would any homeowner want an adjacent 90-acre parcel that had been zoned for industrial and park uses, to suddenly be rezoned for a public facility/jail that could house up to 1200+ inmates? Have any alternatives really been looked at? Residential property values near this parcel have suddenly taken a dip. Why are the Shasta Board of Supervisors so intent on locating such a large correctional facility next to an established residential neighborhood that is very near to or right on the river?
Only about 10 of the 100 or so neighbors in the River Ranch community in the unincorporated area of Anderson were given a vague notice by mail from the City of Redding Development Services Planning Division in October, of a public hearing about rezoning the property from its current designation of “Heavy Industry” and “Parks” to “Public Facilities” or “Institutional”. The land sits between Eastside Road and the Sacramento River.
Sheriff Michael Johnson said that he has been talking about the proposal for months and hasn’t been hiding anything from the public; however, let’s examine how this has been unfolding and let you decide.
For the January 14, 2025, County Board of Supervisors’ (BOS) meeting there was an item on the agenda that stated “Sheriff’s Update on Proposition 36 Impacts.” That’s all that was on the agenda.
Here are the official minutes of that part of the meeting:
Sheriff Michael L. Johnson gave a presentation on the impacts of Proposition 36.
Sheriff Johnson discussed the changes made by the Proposition and the accountability and
treatment options offered by it, as well as the funding allocated by the State toward mental health services and treatment. Undersheriff, Gene Randall, described how Court cap orders affect the County jail population, and the general population trend of the jail. Sheriff Johnson discussed issues facing the County and proposed the creation of an alternative custody program (ACP) in the County to address issues with the jail population and to offer treatment and vocational training to offenders. He suggested the formation of an ad hoc committee to create a plan to move forward with the suggested program.
A motion was made and seconded (Kelstrom/Crye) to form an ad hoc committee to start
working on a plan for the ACP and authorize staff to move forward with looking into the purchase of property for the proposed ACP.
After discussing the motion with County Counsel, Joseph Larmour, Supervisors Kelstrom
and Crye rescinded their motion and second. Chair Crye stated that staff would bring the proposed actions back to the Board at a later date.
The Board and the Sheriff discussed the proposed ACP funding options, various possible
programs that could be incorporated into the ACP, and differing State and Federal requirements. Sheriff Johnson stated that the proposal would require multiple committees to focus on different aspects of the project due to its size and complexity.
It appears that a decision was made behind the scenes to move forward with the property at 7251 Eastside Rd. (APN 050-050-010) without notice to or input from the public:
On the agenda for the February 11, 2025, BOS Special Meeting was Item R2 – Appoint David J. Rickert, CEO, Bryce Ritchie, Senior Administrative Analyst, and Jenn Rossi, Senior Administrative Analyst, as real property negotiators for APN 050-050-010 pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. The Minutes of this meeting state that Bryce Ritchie presented the staff report, discussed the legal requirement to appoint real property negotiators, described the real property, and recommended approval. No one from the public commented on this matter and the motion to approve was passed unanimously.
A Special BOS Meeting took place on February 27, 2025, with various department heads and police chiefs in attendance, presenting challenges that they face with providing for the public’s safety. One of the presenters was Sheriff Johnson who explained that jail capacity constraints, among other issues, has led to stress on his department staff. He stated that approximately 10% of the offenders are repeat offenders and, because there is no jail space, they are released and the cycle continues. That is why he is proposing the Alternative Custody Program. He said he looked into options for expanding the existing jail, however, the cost is prohibitive.
The BOS held a closed session items concerning the formation of a negotiating committee for acquisition or lease of the subject real property on March 22nd, July 16th, and August 12th. No details about the results of the closed sessions were given in the Minutes for these meetings, other than identifying the property by address or Assessor’s Parcel Number.
On August 19th, Item R5 was approved by the BOS at their regular meeting which was:
-Approve a lease agreement with the City of Redding for 7251 Eastside Rd., Redding (APN 050-050-010) and Parcel No. 050-070-008 for land to develop custody operations in Shasta County (Project);
-Approve an agreement with SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists, Inc. for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
-Approve budget amendments which increase: (a) revenue and appropriations by $500,000 in the Alternative Custody Budget (BU 246); and (b) appropriations by $500,000 in the Accumulated Capital Outlay Budget (BU 161) offset by use of General Fund Infrastructure Detention Center committed funds.
At this same meeting, the BOS (Supervisors Matt Plummer, Kevin Crye, and Corkey Harmon) voted to delay approval of putting a Redding Sales Tax Initiative on the ballot until the City of Redding approves the lease agreement. As reported by Shasta Scout:
“Welcome to the land of getting things done,” said Board Chair Kevin Crye, lauding Supervisor Matt Plummer during the August 19 Shasta County board of supervisors meeting. Plummer made a bold move, as Crye put it, convincing a majority of supervisors to delay the county’s agreement to run a special election for Redding, until the city agrees to its end of a land deal with the county.
On August 26th, the BOS approved modifications to a lease agreement with the City of Redding (Item R3) for the subject property.
On October 21st, the BOS approved an amendment to the lease agreement which would allow the County to sublease or license the premises.
On November 18, 2025, the BOS approved a contract with an architectural firm: Approved an agreement with Nichols-Melburg & Rossetto, AIA & Associates, Inc., for architecture and engineering services for the “Corrections and Rehabilitation Campus Project,” Contract No. 610064. (Public Works). This contract, is reportedly for the amount of $192,000.
What exactly do the BOS and Sheriff Johnson have in mind for the Alternative Custody Campus? One needs to go to the Request for Proposals (RFP) put out by the County in August to find out. The RFP indicates that The Shasta County Sheriff’s Department is seeking to develop a 90-acre Corrections and Rehabilitation Campus (CRC) that is proposed to have three specific facilities: a Male Community Re-entry Program (10% of the campus), an Alternative Custody Program (MCRP) (45% of the campus), and a jail (45% of the campus). The concept for the campus is to include a 100-bed secured dwelling, a Sheriff’s office of approximately 3,000 SF, acres of developed agricultural field to grow produce, a large barn and fenced area to accommodate livestock, a chicken coup to house 300 chickens, a mental health building, a life skills training and counseling center, a non-denominational religious building, an out-patient care facility, a vocational training center as well as a 1200+ bed male/female county jail facility capable of housing a variety of inmate classifications.
What does the term Alternative Custody Program mean? This usually means that certain eligible incarcerated individuals are allowed to serve up to the last 12 months of their sentence in the community in lieu of confinement and are usually electronically monitored. See the Notes at the end of this article.
Residents in the River Ranch community have been blind-sided by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors that seem to be pushing full-steam ahead for an exceptionally large correctional and rehabilitation campus to be located right next to their quiet, established neighborhood off of Eastside Road in Anderson, CA. The land in question has been leased from the City of Redding for $1 to the County with a covenant that the County will not increase the footprint of the existing downtown jail for 20 years.
The residents expressed their concerns and fears for their neighborhood at the November 18th BOS meeting, as well as at the Redding City Council Meeting of December 2nd. The neighborhood relies on well water and there is a great concern about the use of pesticides that could contaminate wells in the area if an agricultural component is incorporated in the campus. There are also safety and traffic concerns and the well-founded belief that this will cause their homes to lose value. Sheriff Johnson and Supervisor Chris Kelstrom have offered to meet with concerned residents to answer questions.
It is not known what other properties were considered for this proposed facility; however, here is a quick review of available commercial land in Redding that might be a better fit for a large custody facility such as this that would place the facility farther away from residential neighborhoods. These properties would need rezoning as well. One such property is at 5255 Venture Parkway in Redding, a 29-acre parcel, MLS #25-4866, located in an industrial business park. Another is at 3175 Tarmac Rd., Redding, CA 96003, 22 acres, MLS#25-1251, zoned heavy commercial and heavy industry. There are also many lots available at Airport and Rancho Road in Rancho Industrial Park.
The Planning Commission is set to meet on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, at 4 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 777 Cypress Ave., in Redding, regarding the zoning issue for this parcel. If the Planning Commission denies the rezoning of this land, then the County Board of Supervisors will indeed have put the cart before the horse. The public should have their voices heard in this matter at the very least, and other options can and should be considered in a more public forum prior to a decision being made about what property would best serve the public needs for the alternative custody campus.
Notes:
In the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), "Alternative Custody" refers to a set of non-traditional incarceration programs that allow eligible incarcerated individuals to serve all or part of their sentence outside of a traditional prison facility, under supervision and restrictive conditions, while still counting as time served toward their sentence.
Key CDCR Alternative Custody Programs
These are authorized under California Penal Code §§ 1170(h), 1203.016–1203.018, and related statutes:
Program | Description | Eligibility (General) |
Alternative Custody Program (ACP) (PC § 1170.05) | Allows female inmates (and some males in pilot programs) to serve sentences in community settings like residential homes, treatment facilities, or transitional housing with electronic monitoring (GPS ankle bracelet). | Non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders; low-to-moderate risk; within 24–48 months of release. |
Male Community Reentry Program (MCRP) | Similar to ACP but for male inmates; serves last 12 months in community-based facilities with work, education, and rehab programs. | Non-violent offenders; minimum custody level; parole eligible within 1 year. |
Custody to Community Transitional Reentry Program (CCTRP) | For female inmates; focuses on family reunification; allows living with children in approved facilities. | Mothers with minor children; non-violent; low risk. |
Electronic In-Home Detention (EID) (PC § 1203.016) | County-level (not CDCR) but sometimes used post-CDCR transfer; allows serving sentence at home with GPS monitoring. | Varies by county; typically low-risk, non-violent. |
Shasta County Context: "Alternative Custody Campus"
When Shasta County refers to the Alternative Custody Campus on Eastside Rd., it is not a CDCR state prison program, but a county-level expansion of alternative sentencing options for locally sentenced inmates (under AB 109 / Public Safety Realignment).
Purpose: House low-risk, non-violent offenders in a dorm-style, minimum-security facility focused on rehabilitation, work release, education, and substance abuse treatment.
Goal: Reduce jail overcrowding, lower recidivism, and provide a pathway to reintegration.
Not traditional incarceration: Residents may participate in work crews, community service, job training, and have structured privileges.
