Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout _ 9.1(a)--Response to 2024-25 Shasta Co. Grand Jury Report - Quartz Hill Subdivision DevelopmentI T Y O F ' F 0 R N 1 AV j CITY OF REDDING REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 4, 2025 FROM: Steve Bade, Assistant City ITEM NO. 9.1(a) Manager ***APPROVED BY*** sbadeC& Myofredding.org "Pi Al P 11, �i aqajer7/31/2425 btippin@cityofredding.org JECT: 9.1(a) --Consider City of Redding's response to the Shasta County Grand Jury F ort regarding the Quartz Hill Subdivision Development Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign and send a response letter to the 2024-25 Shasta County Grand Jury concerning its report titled "Quart Hill Subdivision Development — Transparency, Is It Clear?" regarding the City of Redding's (City) planned development on City -owned property consisting of approximately 113 -acres of undeveloped land in Northwest Redding, identified as 850 Quartz Hill Road. Fiscal Impact There is no direct fiscal impact in sending the response to the Shasta County Grand Jury. Alternative Action The City Council (Council) could modify the attached response and authorize the Mayor to transmit the revised response to the Shasta County Grand Jury. The Council may also provide additional direction, as necessary. It should be noted, however, that the City is required to respond to the findings and recommendations contained within the report no later than 90 days (or August 27, 2025) after the Grand Jury submits the report. Background/Analysis On May 29, 2025, the Shasta County Grand Jury issued a report titled Quartz Hill Subdivision Development — Transparency, Is It Clear?. The report contains four findings, and three recommendations. The City Council is required to respond to the findings and recommendations as required in Penal Code 933.05. Staff has developed the attached response to the Shasta County Grand Jury for the City Council's review and consideration. Report to Redding City Council July 31, 2025 Re: 9.1(a) --Response to 2024-25 Shasta Co. Grand Jury Report - Quartz Hill Subdivision Development Page 2 Environmental Review This action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required. Council Priority/City Manager Goals Communication and Transparency — "Improve the quality of communication with the public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust." Attachments ^GJ Report - Quartz Hill Subdivision Development ^Response to GJ Report - Quartz Hill May 29, 2025 Redding City Council 777 Cypress Ave, 31 Floor Redding, CA 96001 "Wr P 0, BOX 9920,96 REDDING. CA 96099-2086 VOICT MAIL: �530)225-5098 Re: QUARTZ HILL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT — Redding, California — Transparency: Is it Clear? Report Date: May 29, 2025 Dear Council Members: Enclosed please find a copy of the above report by the Shasta County Grand Jury. Also enclosed are excerpts from Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05. Please note that subdivision (f) of Penal Code section 933.05 specifically prohibits any disclosure of the contents of a grand jury report by a public agency or its officers or governing body prior to its release to the public, which will occur two (2) days after the date of this letter. Penal Code section 933.05 requires that you respond separately to specified Findings and Recommendations contained in the report. Penal Code section 933.05 mandates the content and format of responses. Penal Code section 933 mandates the deadline for responses. You are required to submit your response within ninety (90) days as follows: Hard copy to: Honorable Tamara Wood, Presiding Judge Shasta County Superior Court 1515 Court Street, Room 610 Redding, CA 96001 Please also send a hard copy or electronic copy of your response to: Foreperson: Susan Wolf Shasta County Grand Jury PO Box 992086 Redding, CA 96099-2086 grandjury@shastacounty.gov Responses are public records. Your entity must maintain a copy of your response. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 916-798-5493 or at the above address. Sincerely, /I., IV,, Susan Wolf Foreperson, Shasta County Grand Jury Enclosures: Grand jury report and Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 (excerpts) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices... As used in this section, "agency" includes a department. CMER��� (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation, (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. QUARTZ HILL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT TRANSPARENCY, IS IT CLEAR9 Jq! BM1� The Shasta County Grand Jury launched an investigation into an allegation of a lack of transparency by the City of Redding, prompted by a citizen complaint. The complainant alleged that the City of Redding failed to provide adequate public notice and information regarding the City's planned development of a parcel of undeveloped land in Northwest Redding. The approximately 113 -acre property identified as 850 Quartz Hill Road falls within the city limits devastated by the 2018 Carr Fire. The neighboring residents raised concerns primarily focused on fire evacuation and traffic flow safety if the city were to pursue residential development on that property. Residents felt these concerns were not adequately addressed. The development process for the City of Redding is complex and lengthy; including preparation and submission of a detailed grant application, pre -development planning, and the process required to obtain subdivision approval. Requirements to notify impacted neighbors of a development are clearly mandated as part of the "California Subdivision Map Act and California Environrnental Quality Act". The investigation found the proposed subdivision, planned for approximately 120 single-family homes, is currently in the initial pre -development stage. Although public input is not required at this stage, the City of Redding has provided opportunities for public engagement. The grand jury concludes that there is room for improvement by the City to address concerns of nearby impacted neighbors, and concerned citizens, as well as their ability to access public engagement opportunities. To assist in understanding certain terms contained within this report the following definitions are provided: " CEQA " - California Environmental Quality Review Act, requires state and local government agencies to evaluate potential environmental impacts of proposed projects and to inform decision -makers and the public about these impacts, and to avoid or mitigate them, if feasible. Under CEQA, California public agencies must proactively engage the public in the environmental review process through scoping meetings, public notices that include review and comment periods, ensuring transparency and allowing for informed decision-making. 2 "City" - City of Redding, including the former Redding Redevelopment Agency. "Density" - the number of household units allowable within a specific development, which may be expressed for an entire development or per unit of measure (i.e., per acre). Higher density means more units within a given area. "Entitlement" - legal permissions or approvals needed from government agencies for a property to be developed or used in a specific way. They are essential for developers and landowners before any construction or change of use can begin. "General Plan" - a comprehensive legal document outlining a community's long-term vision for land use, development, and resource protection. It is required by state law and serves as a guide for land use decisions and development activities. All cities and counties in California are required to develop a general plan. "Grant" - funds from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development provided to California for communities impacted by fires, known as the Community Development Block Grant, Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds. It is administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. "Home Hardening" - a process that makes a home less likely to be damaged by a wildfire. It includes using non-combustible building materials, closing gaps under shingles to prevent embers from entering, creating a fuel -free area around the home, and installing fire-resistant landscaping. "Infrastructure" - improvements to real property in preparation for use development. This includes streets, power, water, wastewater disposal, gutters, sidewalks, drainage, fire hydrants, lighting, etc., making an undeveloped property "builder -ready" for construction. "Pre -development" - the process of assembling feasibility information and studies necessary in connection with development application for land use approval. It evaluates the needs, resources, legal requirements, and considerations necessary for development. "Property" - the undeveloped land parcel owned by the City of Redding, consisting of approximately 113 acres, commonly known as 850 Quartz Hill Rd, Redding, CA. (Shasta County Assessor's Parcel Number 4115-170-001). "Public Engagement" — a procedure for involving members of the public in decisions that impact the community. "Subdivision Map Act" - state law designed to regulate the subdivision of land to ensure orderly growth and development. Its primary purposes include protecting public health and 3 safety, promoting smart land use, public participation, environmental protection, and property rights and disputes, "The Peaks" - the proposed subdivision development name for the Property. "Workforce Housing" - also known as affordable housing, is housing for households with tD incomes below 80% of area median income (AMI). Property History The City acquired the Property in July 2003 from a private owner who was delinquent in taxes and assessments (bonds, water, and sewer). The Property was purchased by the City, pursuant to City staff recommendation, for $2,500 plus substantial delinquent taxes and assessments. The Property was subsequently sold to the Redding Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in July 2008 for $3.2 million. In 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld a decision that effectively eliminated Redevelopment Agencies, including RDA. In January 2012, the Redding City Council elected to serve as the Successor Housing Agency. At that time, the Property returned to the City and has been held in inventory ever since. Property Description The Property has varied topography including steep sloping areas. As such, it is estimated that approximately 70 acres can feasibly be developed. Currently, there are two potential access points to the Property, both via a neighborhood off of Quartz Hill Road. In anticipation of future road development, existing road barriers are located at the western boundaries of Keel Court and Steamboat Street. The Property was devastated by the Carr Fire and remains burn -scarred at the time of this report. The fire ignited in July 2018 and spread quickly due to the extreme heat and windy conditions, severely damaging the Property and destroying nearby homes. The fire eventually burned over 200,000 acres and 1600 structures, including 1000 homes (266 in the City). At the time, it was the sixth-largest fire in Califoinia, resulting in eight deaths and damages of more than $1.659 billion. Since the City's acquisition of the Property, the planned future use has been for single-family residential development. A subdivision development on the Property would require an approval process, pursuant to California codes and regulations as well as local ordinances. This approval process includes: • laws, local ordinances, environmental studies • permit and application fees • a range of analyses that must be reviewed by the governing agency for compliance ® public review, and approval process by the appropriate governing body 9 ® public hearing and notice requirements. Note: The subdivision approval process in California has become increasingly complex and costly since the 1970's. Development Funding In 2018, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced a presidentially declared disaster, DR -4382, covering Shasta and Lake Counties. A federal allocation of Community Development Block Grant- Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) ffinding was granted to the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD widertook an extensive needs assessment to determine the specific priorities of the affected counties, with the majority of funds being allocated to housing, infrastructure, and economic revitalization. In 2022, applications for the CDBG-DR grant funds became available. The City was eligible to apply and submitted two applications. One application, in the amount of $120 million, was to construct a bridge extending Buenaventura Boulevard north to Keswick Dain Road, allowing another access option to the Property and the surrounding area. This application was denied based on two criteria: (1) building a bridge did not meet the Grant funding eligibility requirements and (2) additional egress was not required for new housing development. The second application by the City for Grant funds was for pre - development and infrastructure construction necessary to facilitate a future residential Workforce Housing development. The Grant application requested $43,156,000, however, only $22,563,04' ) was approved. The awarded Grant agreement was approved and accepted by the Redding City Council oil October 12, 2022, with public notice provided on the Council agenda. Of the $22,563,043 Grant funds, $2.5 million was designated for pre -development and the balance for infrastructure construction. Initially, the term of the Grant agreement for completion was March 2026; however, the City has requested an extension based upon a delay in initial Grant documentation and has received preliminary approval. Once the Grant agreement was approved, the City sought a consultant for the preliminary pre - development activities via.a Request for Proposal (RFP). The City sought a developer with the capacity, creativity, and commitment to transform the Property into a single-family subdivision under an accelerated timeline. The City Council approved the submittal recommended by City staff as their consultant for Property preliminary pre -development, which was publicly agendized on December 19, 2023. Currently Proposed Subdivision Preliminary design of The Peaks currently envisions approximately 120 single-family homes, a park, open space, and connections to the existing Redding trail system. Planned homes are defined as 5 Workforce Housing whereby at least 50% of the homes within the development are designated for income -qualified buyers. The goal is to maintain consistency of home style and design throughout the new and existing neighborhoods. All planned construction would be of a similar nature throughout the development, comparable in design and size to abutting neighborhood homes. The Peaks is anticipated to be a "fire -safe community" incorporating the latest fire -safe strategies, including Home Hardening. The City anticipates conducting Planning Commission hearings in 2025 for review of The Peaks subdivision plan. There will be additional opportunities for input, engagement, and education about The Peaks as it transitions from pre -development planning phase to subdivision approval. Upon final approval, infrastructure construction would begin, using the Grant funds. Once the infrastructure development is completed, the Peaks will be builder -ready. A final subdivision map will include civil engineering plans approved by the City, with drawings reflecting the final constructed project. The individual lots would then be ready to market for home construction. 391 Public Engagement The City is a public entity, and as such, community members have the opportunity to engage and be involved in the public meetings, including the City Council and Planning Commission, Public meetings are agendized in advance and the agendas are available online. Meetings are also televised live and recordings of prior meetings are available on the City's website. The public is invited to speak on agenda items. City Council and Planning Commission meetings also offer an opportunity for members of the public to address their concerns regarding non-agendized items, however, no action can be taken on such items at that time. City Council and Planning Commission members have public contact methods available to the community on the City's website. As the neighbors became aware of the potential development of the Property, residents wrote to City staff and attended both Planning Commission and City Council meetings. In 2024, a nearby resident submitted a request for investigation to the Shasta County Grand Jury regarding the City and the Property development. As indicated above, public engagement in the initial pre -development phase is not required prior to submission of final plans. At the time of this report, the City has conducted public meetings about the potential Property development specifically to address the concerns of nearby neighbors. One was held in December 2024 and another in January 2025; both meetings were attended by nearby residents. The Peaks subdivision has been the subject of increased media coverage. A special meeting of the City Council was held on March 3, 2025, at the Property (comer of Spinnaker and Keel). It was well 7 attended, including all council members, senior city staff from multiple departments, media, a pre - development consultant, Shasta County Grand Jurors and many community members. The tour of the site included a visual inspection of the Property, the opportunity to hear from a neighborhood spokesperson, and a brief discussion covering neighborhood concerns and future opportunities to address development of The Peaks. The City's current General Plan was adopted on March 26, 2024, Pre -development planning takes place in accordance with the General Plan and prior to a formal submission to the City of a subdivision plan. The Peaks is currently in the initial pre -development planning phase; therefore, no public engagement is required. During this initial phase, several versions of a plan may be considered. Premature release of any aspect of a subdivision plan before formal submittal could subject the City to liability if the Property were to be developed privately. The Peaks development is unique in that the City is the Property owner, rather than a private developer. To date, the City has exceeded all required public engagement requirements as noted above. The number of housing units on a piece of property is regulated by the City's General Plan, which provides a range of housing units allowed per acre. As currently planned, the housing density for The Peaks is less than that allowed per the General Plan. Ultimately, the City's zoning ordinances will provide the enforceable regulations for specific land use and development standards consistent with the General Plan, establishing the density range that must be met. Advantages of Development by City As the developer of The Peaks, the City enjoys certain advantages over a private developer, including the creation of a project driven primarily by community priorities, rather than return on investment priorities. Advantages include reduced density, size and location of amenities, design improvements not otherwise required, integration of fire safety strategies such as Home Hardening, additional fire hydrants at optimal locations, wider streets, planned vegetation management, and traffic mitigation measures that exceed requirements. Ali additional advantage is that the City does not pay County property taxes on City owned property. Other advantages of City development of The Peaks include the original Property acquisition, property taxes, design flexibility, and the successful Grant award. The primary focus of the City is not the financial return on investment, as it would be for a private developer. The Grant provides $22.5 million, which the City would not otherwise have available to increase area Workforce Housing and integrate fire safety strategies. If the City is not successful in developing The Peaks, the infrastructure development portion of the Grant award would be forfeited and not be available to the City for any other use. M The CDBG-DR Grant funding as awarded to the City is not for fire mitigation, rather the funding is intended_primarily to assist housing recovely_and benefit low and moderate -income households (Workforce Housing) in areas impacted by fire. CDBG-DR grants are specifically for disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization. The applicant is required to use Grant funds as set forth in the approved Grant agreement. The City specifically applied for the pre -development planning for infrastructure development, including the installation of roads and utilities, which would then enable a Workforce Housing project to be constructed. Concerns of Nearby Residents The Peaks development has two existing access routes, which meet the requirements for the planned development. Nearby neighbors continue to express concerns regarding fire and traffic flow, specifically ingress and egress. There may be potential for additional egress or an emergency exit from the Property, which could alleviate some residents' concerns, however it is not included in The Peaks' current development plan. Egress and traffic flow problems experienced during the Carr Fire have left residents with heightened concerns about the development of this area. During grand jury interviews with impacted residents, and as reported in local media reports, it is apparent that many residents remain anxious and fearful as the area Quartz Hill Road is a major roadway connecting Keswick Dain Boulevard to the west and Benton Drive to the cast (to North Market Street /Highway 273). During the fire, road construction and the path of fire impeded traffic exiting the area. A portion of Quartz Hill Road (approximately three quarters of a mile) was closed due to construction at the time the Carr Fire was moving toward Redding. As reflected in the map above, emergency routing was implemented to the east through an existing subdivision. As the fire approached the city, Keswick Dain Boulevard was closed. When traffic began to back up, Redding Police Department removed the construction barriers on Quartz Hill Road, creating three additional lanes of egress to Benton Drive. To further assist, North Market Street/Highway 273 was changed to four lanes, northbound only. Note: At the City Council meeting on May 6, 2025, authorization was given to publish a request for proposal seeking qualified consultants for planning and evaluation of the City's emergency evacuation routes. Alternative to City Development If the City does not move forward with The Peaks, officials have indicated that they intend to sell the Property from surplus inventory, putting money from the sale into the General Fund. Unimproved and unentitled land parcels have experienced a dramatic reduction in value since the early 2000's. The real estate collapse in 2008 and steadily increasing regulatory control and development restrictions have increased costs, risk, and demand. The Property appraised for $3.2 million in 2006 and was reappraised in 2011 for $400,000. Sale of the Property by the City "as -is" (undeveloped) would likely generate a small percentage of potential revenue. Further, if the Property is sold "as -is", it would remain an unentitled land parcel without subdivision approval. Pursuant to the Surplus Land Act, the City would be obligated to require any private developer to prioritize Workforce Housing. Such:a sale would likely result in less desirable impacts for the community than is currently envisioned, such as increased housing density, a smaller (or no) park site, and less uniformity of housing. The California Density Bonuses and Other Incentives Law ("Density Bonus Law") incentivizes Workforce Housing development by allowing developers to increase density on a project in exchange for including a certain percentage of affordable units. Other incentives include reduced parking requirements and waivers of local standards. If this were to occur, the Property could potentially allow for significantly increased housing units, which could impact fire concerns in teens of traffic and spacing between homes. Even with the increase in density, it is possible that the two existing access points would meet code requirements. Current and. proposed legislation is aimed at solutions to housing demand and affordability. The demand for Workforce Housing in California may have additional considerations beyond increasing density. Iff Much like the Density Bonus allowed in Workforce Housing, it may streamline the approval process, but potentially reduce public engagement opportunities. In summary, the possible consequences of The Peaks subdivision not moving forward as currently envisioned by the City could result in less desirable alternatives for nearby residents, city taxpayers, and the community. These may include: 1. Loss of approximately $20 million of the remaining CDBG-DR Grant funds 2. Loss of $10 million or more in potential sales of developed lots to independent builders, which may result in a loss or reduction of available City services, including public safety 3. If the Property is sold by the City "as -is" to an independent buyer: a. A development which includes Workforce Housing, would likely result in higher density housing than is currently planned, with fewer public engagement opportunities b. The Property may remain undeveloped and the high fire danger nature of the area for nearby residents would remain unchanged. During the investigation, the grand jury reviewed the following: I • Read and watched local news reports about The Peaks development. • Reviewed the Requestfor Investigation submitted to the Shasta County Grand Jury June 24, 2024, included exhibits and attachments. • Reviewed documentation and information provided in response to records requests. • Reviewed websites. • Reviewed applicable local, state, and federal legislation. ® Reviewed The Peaks initial pre -development planning documents, Site Visit and Public Meetings The grand jury toured the Property, providing information about the visual appearance and access points to the Property. Additionally, the grand jury attended a Redding City Council meeting on February 18, 2025, and the City Council Special Meeting held at the Property on March 3, 2025, The grand jury interviewed the complainant, a neighborhood group representative, City's administrative staff familiar with the subject matter including staff from the City of Redding's Administration, Development Services, Fire Department, Treasurer, former Redding Redevelopment Agency, and staff 11 from the Shasta County Tax Collector and Assessor offices. FINDINGS Fl. Nearby area residents expressed concerns about The Peaks. Although there is no requirement for public notice in the initial pre -development stage, the City responded by providing opportunities for input and engagement, F2. There is currently a demand and need for Workforce Housing. Using available CDBG-DR ftinding, The Peaks development is the City of Redding's approach to mitigating the Workforce Z:� Housing shortage in the City while maintaining control of development in line with City priorities. F3. Since profit -oriented objectives of private developers may deviate from community -ori goals envisioned by the City for The Peaks development, the City has chosen to retain control of the development. F4. Due to an ongoing perceived lack of transparency by the City, residents near the Property remain concerned about fire safety and evacuation routes. RECOMMENDATIONS The Shasta County Grand Jury recommends that: RL On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to schedule an additional public presentation, explaining the City's vision for The Peak's development, This should be held by August 31, 2025; and include: the approval process, future public engagement opportunities, alternatives to The Peaks, and potential consequences of those alternatives. Notification of the presentation should be provided, via direct mailing, to residents within 800 feet of The Peaks and to those who have requested project information. The City should issue a Press Release and notify the community of the planried presentation via all the City's social media platforms. R2. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to integrate additional feasible alternatives into The Peaks development plan prior to final submission, including ingress and egress options, fire mitigation measures, and a defensible space t:1 requirement, which may enhance public safety and exceed planning requirements. R3. On or before September 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager ensure the development of programs, such as a Citizen A eademy or podcast, by December 31 2025, to encourage and educate citizens on how they can have their voices heard in the City, regarding land use and property development, along with how constructive participation can help shape the community. 12 Pursuant to Penal Code, Sections §933 and §9331.05 respectively, the 2024-2025 Shasta County Grand July requests the responses listed below: • The Redding City Council as to Fl, F2, F3, and F4 within 90 days. • The Redding City Council as to RI, R2, and R3 within 90 days. Reports issued by a Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section §929 requires that reports of a Grand Jury not contain the names of any person or facts leading to the identity of any persons who provided information to a Grand July. • City of Redding. "Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)." Accessed April 10, 2025 www.cityofredding.gov/goverlunent/departments/fire—department/community—risk—redLiction/co mmunity—wildfire_protection_plai-i.php • City of Redding. "General Plan 2045", Adopted March 26, 2024, Accessed April 10, 2025 w-,,vw.Iciw.cornell.edLI/re�,,tilatioiis/california/14-CCR-15183 0 California Government Code §66410-66413.5, Subdivision Map Act. Accessed April 10, 2025 https://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&tI tle=7. &part=&chgpter-- 1. &article= I Cal. Code Regs, Tit 14, §15000 —Authority (limited to when public engagement commences). Accessed April 10, 2025 ,,N,-vvNv.l,-Lw.comell.edLti/ret4tilations/califoriiia/14-CCR- 15000 California Government Code §§ 54220-54234, Surplus Land Act. Access April 10, 2025 littDs://'Iec2,info,Iegislattire.ca.�ov/faces/code ti tle=5.& T, ,�i�rt--I,&�,cha te�r--5.&aiticle=8 ®. Californias.Government Code §§ 65915-65918 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives. Accessed April 10, 2025 littr)s-//'Ie,iiiiifo.leoisl,aitLire.c-,at.ca,ov/faces/code ti tle=7.&pai-t_=&claal2ter--4.3.&ai-ticle= 13 Notes: 0 Allocation Announcement — 2018 Community Development Block Grant — Disaster Recovery Infrastructure Program, August 22, 2022. City of Redding email communications to the Shasta County Grand Jury on February 18, 2025, March 7, 2025, and March 13, 2025. 0 Community Development Block Grant — Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) application by the City of Redding, for Quartz Hill Infrastructure, March 8, 2022. Historical property records, including acquisition and transfer documents for the Property, tax records, and Redding City Council, including Redding Redevelopment Agency and Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and meeting minutes detailing the Property, CDBG-DR Grant, and The Peaks development planning, 0 Historical Property Appraisals o Shaw and Associates, Robert H. Shaw, MAI, November 10, 2003 o John E. Birmingham, MAI, June 7, 2006 o RMB Appraisers, Richard A. Murphy, MAI, July 14, 2011 0 Media reports regarding The Peaks 0 Preliminary Property designs for subdivision, October 1, 2024 a Requests for Proposals (RFP), RFP award dated December 19, 2023, RFPs received from competing applicants for pre -development activities 0 Standard Agreement between California Department of Housing and Community Development and City of Redding, for administration of Grant funds, signed August 17, 2023 14 C IT Y OF CITY OF D 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 71 E D D I !• PO BOX 496071, Redding, CA 96049-607' Jack Munns, Mayor Jmunns@cityofredding.org 530.225.4447 August 4, 2025 Honorable Tamara Wood, Presiding Judge Shasta County Superior Court 1515 Court Street, Room 610 Redding, CA 96001 Re: Response of City of Redding City Council to Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Grand Jury Report: Quartz Hill Subdivision Development — Transparency, Is It Clear? Dear Judge Wood, The City Council of the City of Redding (City) appreciates the time and dedication the members of the 2024-2025 Grand Jury contributed to their charge. As background, in August 2022, the City was successful in receiving a $22.6 million grant to aid in the community's recovery efforts following the devastating Carr Fire. This grant was part of a congressionally authorized disaster recovery award delivered to the state and distributed locally, allowing maximum flexibility in its use, including infrastructure projects. Several recommendations of the Grand Jury were already occurring, and some are not feasible, due to Redding Municipal Code. The responses below simply reflect these differences and are not meant to diminish the soundness of the Grand Jury's recommendations. Below are the City's responses to the Grand Jury's Findings and Recommendations. Findings Fl. Nearby area residents expressed concerns about The Peaks. Although there is no requirement for public notice in the initial pre -development stage, the City responded by providing opportunities for input and engagement. Response: The City agrees with the finding. F2. There is currently a demand and need for Workforce Housing. Using available CDBG- DR funding, The Peaks development is the City of Redding's approach to mitigating the Workforce Housing shortage in the City while maintaining control of development in line with City priorities. Response: The City agrees with the fording. Response of the City of Redding City Council to Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Grand Jury Report: August 4, 2025 Quartz Hill Subdivision Development — Transparency, Is It Clear? Page 2 of 3 F3. Since profit -oriented objectives of private developers may deviate from community - oriented goals envisioned by the City for The Peaks development, the City has chosen to retain control of the development. Response: The City partially disagrees with this finding. The City cannot speak to the objectives of private developers; however, the City had determined a need for this type of project and seized the opportunity to apply for CDBG-DR Grant funds. F4. Due to an ongoing perceived lack of transparency by the City, residents near the Property remain concerned about fire safety and evacuation routes. Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding. The City is aware of several different perceptions from City of Redding residents, both near and far from the property, and has provided numerous opportunities for the public to receive information and share their concerns, and will continue to do so. Recommendations: R.1. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to schedule an additional public presentation, explaining the City's vision for The Peak's development. This should be held by August 31, 2025, and include the approval process, future public engagement opportunities, alternatives to The Peaks, and potential consequences of those alternatives. Notification of the presentation should be provided, via direct mailing, to residents within 800 feet of The Peaks and to those who have requested project information. The City should issue a Press Release and notify the community of the planned presentation via all the City's social media platforms. Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Additional public meetings and outreach have been provided in the City's grant administration due diligence efforts. Public meetings have been held in a variety of locations and on various dates and times, in an effort to provide several options for the public to attend. Through the City's social media channels and Press :Releases, meetings have been advertised and shared with the public, providing an opportunity to submit comments, either online, via email, or by telephone, including the ability to request to be added to mailings regarding the subject property. For further outreach, the City has a dedicated webpage for The Peaks located on the City of Redding website, as well as podcasts, mailings via U.S. Postal Service, and Community Outreach meetings (November 13, 2024, January 22, 2025, with a City Council Meeting conducted on site (walking tour) on March 3, 2025). R2. On or before July 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to integrate additional feasible alternatives into The Peaks development plan prior tofinal submission, including ingress and egress options, fire mitigation measures, and a defensible space requirement, which may enhance public safety and exceed planning requirements. Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. Per Redding Municipal Code (RMC) 18.10.030 — Planning Commission, RMC 18-10-040 - Board of ' Administrative Review, and RMC 18.10.050 — Development Services Director are charged with reviewing plans, applications, and providing recommendations for various plans and Response of the City of Redding City Council to Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Grand Jury Report: Quartz Hill Subdivision Development — Transparency, Is It Clear? August 4, 2025 Page 3 of 3 As background, many City departments are engaged in reviewing plans submitted to the City: Community Services (Parks and Recreation), Planning Division, including reviewing for General :Plan conformity, Fire Department, Public Works, Electric Utility, and other departments, as necessary. Public feedback is also a consideration. R3. On or before September 1, 2025, the Redding City Council direct the City Manager to ensure the development of programs, such as a Citizen Academy or podcast, by December 31, 2025, to encourage and educate citizens on how they can have their voices heard in the City, regarding land use and property development, along with how constructive participation can help shape the community. Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will take place by December 31, 2025. This concludes the response from the City of Redding City Council to the 2024-2025 Grand Jury :Report entitled Quartz Hill Subdivision Development — Transparency, Is It Clear? Sincerely, Jack Munns Mayor City of Redding cc: Susan Wolf, Foreperson, Shasta County Grand Jury Redding City Council Redding City Manager Redding City Attorney