Should Shasta County and the City of Redding Admit They Erred in Moving Forward with Plans for a Correctional Facility Adjacent to a Residential Neighborhood?
- Elisa Ballard
- Jan 14
- 8 min read
Redding residents and concerned citizens came out in droves on Tuesday evening, January 13th to voice their concerns and opposition to a proposed Alternative Correction Facility and Future Jail that was the subject of a rezoning hearing put before the Redding City Planning Commission. Only four of the seven Planning Commissioners were present for the hearing:
Present were Chairman Russ Wenham, and Commissioners Luke Miner, Leslie Williem, and Blake Nance.
Absent were Greg Balkovek, Michele Godert, and Erin Ryan.
According to the City Attorney, Christian Curtis, the approval or disapproval of the zoning change would have no effect on Shasta County’s ability to use the land for any purposes because the County is the ultimate authority in terms of usage now that the lease agreement has been signed. The matter was brought before the City of Redding Planning Commission simply to satisfy a condition of the lease agreement that was entered into by the City of Redding (owner) and Shasta County (lessee).
Here is the language in the lease agreement that gave rise to this Planning Commission Hearing:
Section 10. REZONING OBLIGATION
Within 180 days of execution of this lease, City shall, at its own costs, present to the City’s
Planning Commission an item to rezone the Premises to Public Facility zone district for
administrative planning and data purposes, including that the City zoning map be consistent
with the County post Project use of the Premises.
City of Redding staff, including Lily Toy, Planning Manager, recommended approval of the resolution amending the General Plan from the existing designations of “Heavy Industry” and
“Parks” to “Public Facilities or Institutional” and rezoning the property located at 7251 Eastside Road from “HI” Heavy Industrial District to "PF" Public Facility District, to allow for future development of a County facility because, she said, “this would have less of an impact and be a more conducive use next to a residential neighborhood than heavy industrial.”
The land is adjacent to the 96-home River Ranch Neighborhood, is south of a sewage treatment facility and at one time was a designated buffer zone for odors coming off the facility. The land is also adjacent to the Sacramento River and is in a flood zone, with a high water table and has ponds and riparian habitat for nesting bald eagles.
Basics of the Lease Agreement are as follows:
The City of Redding and the County of Shasta entered into a 30-year, rent-free lease agreement for approximately 90 acres of land at 7251 Eastside Road (APNs 050-050-010 and 050-070-008) to develop an alternative custody campus (a type of correctional/rehabilitation facility).
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors approved the lease agreement on August 26, 2025.
The Redding City Council unanimously approved it on September 2, 2025, finalizing the agreement between the two parties.
The County was given an option to purchase the land for $1 after 1 year of correctional facility operations.
The County agreed not to expand the existing number of jail beds within the City of Redding outside of the existing footprint of the Shasta County Jail located at 1655 West Street, Redding, for a period of 20 years.
No one in the River Ranch Neighborhood was given notice that the County had plans to possibly build a 100-bed Male Community Re-entry Program, an Alternative Custody Program, and a county jail with over 1,200 beds. Approximately 10 of the 96 homes in the neighborhood received a notice of a rezoning hearing in October. It wasn’t until concerned residents reviewed the County Request for Proposals (RFP) that they learned about the scope of the project that could take place just to the north of their neighborhood. The residents quickly notified their neighbors so all would be altered to the proposal. The residents organized a petition that was circulated online and was said to have received hundreds of signatures in opposition to the project.
At the hearing, 35 people, many long-time residents of River Ranch, spoke during the public comment period. All were in opposition to the project except one speaker. While there was no one who questioned the need for an alternative custody campus, almost no one thought it was a good idea to put such a facility next to a residential neighborhood. There were many safety concerns as well as questions about the legality of how the project has unfolded. Here are some of the issues raised during the public comment portion of the hearing:
- A 47-year resident mentioned that when she purchased the home, she was told that the field behind the neighborhood would never be developed because it was designated as a buffer zone.
- Emergency egress is very limited for the area due to having only two exists which must cross the railroad tracks.
- Existing wildlife habitat will be affected, including two nesting bald eagles, 135 species of birds, deer, frogs, foxes, and salmon spawning areas.
- All of the River Ranch residences rely on well water and septic tanks. There is a great concern for the pollution such a facility will generate as a proposed farming and livestock operation is also in the RFP.
- Other possible sites were not fully evaluated, with “group think” and the “bandwagon effect” taking hold of the decision-makers.
- Three of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted to delay putting a citizens’-led sales tax increase initiative on the ballot for the City as a way of pressuring or “extorting” the City to sign the agreement. (Supervisor Matt Plummer proposed the delay, and Supervisors Kevin Crye and Corkey Harmon agreed. Supervisors Allen Long and Chris Kelstrom objected.)
- The proposed project will bring noise and light pollution, increased traffic on already deteriorating roads, and safety concerns for residents, including young children who live in the neighborhood.
- The tranquility of the neighborhood will be destroyed, creating much anxiety for the residents.
- There is a high water table in the area, complicating the land use, with ponding seen in a large segment of the land.
- Property values have already been affected with decreases of 10- 30% being discussed.
- The fiduciary duty of the City was called into question since they are giving the land to the County without receiving any compensation.
- Patrick Jones, former Redding City Mayor and former Shasta County Supervisor stated that the former County Courthouse site has the infrastructure needed for a jail expansion and is located next to the existing jail and right across the street from the new courthouse which would save transportation costs, building costs, etc., and would be the least offensive place for the project.
- Former Mayor of Anderson, Melissa Hunt, said she just became aware of the project, is a fan of Sheriff Johnson, but does not think this is the right place for this facility, asking why was this approved with only two outlets? It would be a serious safety concern in an area that is prone to flooding and wildfires. She also reiterated that this land is supposed to be a buffer zone for the sewer treatment plant.
- The Sacramento River is Redding’s greatest asset. Why would anyone rezone this area in direct conflict with the general plan?
- The County has discussed plans to turn over the operation of the proposed facility to a private entity. Is this in the best interest of the safety of the adjacent residents?
- Would Redding turn into another crime-ridden area like Susanville or Stockton with inmates coming and going from a huge jail facility, attracting inmates’ family members to this peaceful part of town?
- If there was a sudden flood, how would the locked inmates be evacuated from the facility?
River Ranch resident, Ashley Wayman, stated that the neighborhood association has been in contact with the Shasta Land Trust who has expressed an interest in acquiring the land as forever green space. She said the River Ranch Neighborhood Association has retained an attorney and the City has been just been served with a complaint. She said the residents have had to fight the City over and over again for inappropriate use of the land over the years and they have been successful each time.
Troy Bartolomei, Shasta County Public Works Director, spoke at the hearing, explaining that the County has hired an outside firm to do an Environmental Impact Report for the project and that the County is just at the “Project Definition Stage”. Later, site alternative studies will be done as well as a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). There will be a Notice of Preparation in April or May and the public will be invited to comment then. In response to a question by Commissioner Nance, Bartolomei stated that he has been working on the project for the past four or five months and that the County has hired an architect to design the project.
Sheriff Michael Johnson was asked to speak about the project and gave a brief outline of how he became aware of the need for more jail beds and rehabilitation facilities, but the cost to expand the existing jail was too cost prohibitive. He mentioned a cost of $300 million to build a new jail. He then stated “that was not an option.” A site was considered off Old Oregon Trail but that was struck down by the prior Board for various reasons which he did not elaborate on. Sheriff Johnson stated that the new Board of Supervisors were supportive of a rehabilitation campus for nonviolent offenders and, therefore, he asked CEO, David Rickert, about County surplus lands to consider, one of which was on Clear Creek Rd., but that was struck down due to “(unintelligible word) lines”. Sheriff Johnson then said he asked Redding City Manager, Barry Tippin, if there were any surplus lands available and was given two to three properties to consider. Sheriff Johnson then stated “I liked this one the best.” He said “It was no secret. The Board of Supervisors discussed it on two or three occasions in open sessions…The 1200-bed jail is something that is a 50-60 year outlook, but we want the EIR to be full scope.”
After some discussion, Chair Wenham stated that, "The Commission is in an unusual situation. Things don't line up. Some things were done in closed session, some in open session. We don't have all of the information that went into the decision." After laying out their options, the Commissioners could not come to an agreement about how to proceed with the matter of rezoning. Commissioner Nance wanted to send a recommendation to the City to terminate the lease agreement with the County, but did not get any support for his idea from the other commissioners present. Also, City Attorney Curtis stated that Nance's recommendation was outside the scope or jurisdiction of what the Planning Commission can do. A motion was made by Commissioner Williem, seconded and voted on to move the issue to the City Council without any recommendation regarding the zoning. That motion failed to pass, with three "yes" votes, and one "no" vote (Nance). Four votes were needed. City Attorney Curtis was not able to answer a question about what should occur next. Would this matter be brought before the Planning Commission again, or would it pass to the Redding City Council?
With so much confusion and public outcry about possible poor decision-making, alleged lack of notice to affected residents, and potential major safety, infrastructure and environmental issues associated with developing this site, will the City and County officials admit to an error in judgment, rescind the lease agreement, and continue the search for a better-suited site for the correctional facility? The lease has a provision that allows for termination by the County with a 30-day notice. This could save the County and City a time-consuming process that would likely result in costly litigation, a drawn out EIR, and continued stresses for the good residents of the City of Redding and Anderson. Decades ago, someone put it quite succinctly: “To err is human, to persist in error is diabolical.” – Georges Canguilhem
