Public Comments

Dear Director Pagan,

As I write this, perhaps over the wire, you are doubtless inundated by
emails from concerned citizens. I am yet another echoing sentiments that
the EIR include the input of the local tribes, recognized and unrecognized,
in a specific, meaningful, and ongoing capacity.

The Sacramento River is the crown jewel of Redding. It is no manmade
diversion, nor is it an urban waterway destined for walkable shopping à la
Austin or Amsterdam. It is the aorta of California, giving life not only to
billions of creatures, but to Silicon Valley itself. To clog this aorta
with the calcified plaque of development would be a foolhardy and
self-defeating endeavor.

Our Native voices are some of the loudest and clearest in opposition to
such development. They remind the rest of us that our land is our home, not
to be endlessly improved or exploited, but cherished, nurtured, and
appreciated. There’s no undoing what will be done to the riverfront. The
can could always be kicked down the road, voracious developers could be
promised a revisit in the future. But once the dirt is shaken from the
roots holding up the banks, once the otters are evicted from their homes,
once the last remaining stretch of virginal waterfront is blotted by
billboard, there’s no going back. Let it be wild. It’s better for all of us.

Dear Mr. Pagan,

On behalf of Shasta Environmental Alliance, we are submitting comments on the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report EIR for the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan in Redding. From the river channel today, people in boats or wading to fish mostly see a continuous natural tree lined bank with very few visible buildings. These riparian trees and understory plants provide habitat for native birds, fish, mammals, and other wildlife that use this reach as a movement and feeding corridor. The EIR should treat the river as a primary viewpoint and analyze how the visitor hospitality and events concept would change that experience for people on the water.

1. Visitor hospitality and events
The EIR should evaluate how turning large portions of the riverfront into a visitor hospitality and
events district will affect the river ecosystem, native wildlife, riparian vegetation, and nearby neighborhoods, including increased traffic, noise, lighting, litter, and shoreline wear from frequent high attendance events at the Civic Center, rodeo grounds, and other venues, as well as from new hotels and restaurants, and should compare these impacts to alternatives that keep the riverfront primarily as open space, habitat, and everyday local recreation rather than an events and tourism zone.

2. Public land and public access
Because the plan will govern use of prime public riverfront land, the EIR should analyze whether
the proposed zoning and standards increase the risk of privatizing public spaces or functionally excluding local residents through pricing, design, or programming decisions, including the long term implications of visitor retail zoning on public parcels and how that might change who actually uses and benefits from the riverfront over time, and should fully evaluate alternatives that keep public land in low intensity public use and habitat that supports native plants and wildlife. Because parking in most of the riverfront area is currently free, the EIR should also analyze how any move to paid parking, event based pricing, or stricter time limits would affect access for local residents, lower income visitors, and people who come to fish, walk, or use the river without spending money.

3. Southern riverfront
The EIR should provide the same level of analysis for the south riverfront as it does for the
northern section. It should examine how increased development and recreation pressure will affect habitat, erosion, boating and fishing access, and existing river users, including native fish, turtles, birds, and other wildlife that rely on shallow edge habitat and vegetated banks. The EIR should also consider alternatives that place stronger environmental limits on private development in the south riverfront area.

4. Highway and access concepts
Previous versions of the plan and public comments have raised concerns about changes to Highway
44 and new or expanded access routes into the riverfront. The EIR should evaluate the full range of roadway and secondary access options, including their effects on air quality, noise, safety for people walking and biking, habitat fragmentation along the corridor, and evacuation and emergency response under peak use conditions, not only average daily traffic. The EIR should also evaluate how changes to parking supply and location, including any shift from free to paid or event parking, will affect circulation patterns, spillover parking into nearby neighborhoods, and safe access for people walking and biking.

5. Transparency and future changes
The EIR should acknowledge that the plan language is evolving, require that draft versions of the
specific plan and all technical studies be easily available throughout the process, and clearly explain how future changes to land use designations, such as reintroducing housing or intensifying commercial uses, would be handled and whether they would require additional environmental review.

In summary, we ask that the Environmental Impact Report move beyond a generic checklist of issues and directly analyze the environmental and social tradeoffs of turning the riverfront into a visitor and events focused district, especially on public land along the Sacramento River. Please ensure that strong conservation and open space oriented alternatives are included and fully evaluated alongside the higher intensity concepts now being advanced.
Sincerely,
Shasta Environmental Alliance

Dear Director Pagan,

It’s clear the City of Redding has put a lot of time and effort into the
Redding Riverfront Specific Plan update.

ear the City of Redding has put a lot of time and effort into the Redding
Riverfront Specific Plan update. I’m writing as a with the intention of making the EIR process stronger and the
scope more complete.

Please ensure the scope includes the following in the EIR analysis of potential
impacts, alternatives and mitigation measure
. I’m writing as a longtime local who lives, works and recreates in the
area. with the intention of making the EIR process stronger and the scope
more complete.

Please ensure the scope includes the following in the EIR analysis of potential
impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures:

- The EIR must analyze the Riverfront as an Indigenous cultural
landscape, not just individual archeological sites.
- The EIR must analyze whether increased development and visitor
activity could interfere with Indigenous ceremony, gathering, healing, and
access to the river.
- The Program EIR must clarify what level of environmental review will
be required for individual projects in the future.
- The EIR must analyze whether subsequent projects exceeding program
assumptions will require supplemental EIRs, and on what basis this decision
will be made.
- The EIR must be consistent with the City of Redding General Plan 2045
Policy NR9A: “Strive to ensure the protection of prehistoric, cultural and
archeological resources during the development process. Consult with
local Wintu tribes as appropriate to help identify and preserve cultural
resources during the development review process.” Since future projects
considered to be consistent with the Program EIR will have a streamlined
development review process, this is especially important now. This must
include both recognized and unrecognized tribes.

Sincerely,

Dear Sir,

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on features that are important to
consider as part of the EIR plan.

Trails and Bikeways are an integral component of enjoying the Riverfront.

What would be ideal to see at the Riverfront are trails that allow for two
way pedestrian/bicycle traffic. A consideration of safety and comfort on
these trails would include trails that are 8 to 10 feet in width. A
consideration of an occasional footpath diverting from the trail could be a
consideration for Fisherman.

It would be a value to have a group of representatives from the Sierra
Club, Native Plant Society, Birding Society, Beautify Shasta, Shasta
Environmental Alliance, Trails and Bikeways Council of Greater Redding,
Redding Trail Alliance, included in something like, the Friends of the
Riverfront, to present to the county on an annual basis suggestions for
nature improvements, and access and connectivity improvements. These groups
may even support information for grant writing or have the talent to
support writing for grant funds.

Please protect our Riparian area along the waters edge to keep the scenery
green and still feeling native. The buildings which are across from
Tortilla Flats Resturant, ie Reiner Chiropractic etc have a concrete path
behind the buildings. There is very little space for birds or animals to
live. Please give a minimum of 150 feet to protect our waterways and the
life that thrives there.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Hello Jeremy Pagan,

I'd like to make my comments here about what are the tentative Redding
Riverfront Plans, and make some suggestions. I am a former Associate
Planner at Caltrans District 2 here in Redding and now run a planning
consulting firm in Shasta County.

1) The way you have gone about gathering information and presenting
information about this, as well as transparency has been top notch. Well
done.

2) Rather than address each topic of importance listed in the plans, I'll
just give my thoughts here.

-The remaining wood buildings where the restaurant island is out in the
lagoon/side channel I really think needs to be kept and refurbished. Not
sure if it should be started up as a restaurant again. THats was a great
novelty in the 70s and 80s. I ate there many times and thought it was
great. But keeping that intact is important as it is an iconic historical
part of REdding now. Maybe make that just a viewing area people can walk
out on and have a coffee shop or vendors out there. Not sure how it would
do though because we have Sundial and Turtle Bay that gets most of the
tourism/attendance across the highway there. But somehow that piece needs
to be kept. That island building and walkway needs to be kept and/or
transformed somehow.

**Subnote here - the matching wood office building that was outfront and
just burned - I also think needs to be rebuilt in the same wooded form it
was to keep the memories alive and for consistency with the island building.



3) Aqua Golf - ok so we need to just upgrade its presentation. It looks
like its from the 70s, which it is. Lets put some upgrades and some current
year flair on this. I love Aqua Golf - but just a few tidy ups. Match it
to the downtown Redding new architecture, or match it to other cities
similar riverfront upscaled settings. Just go look at like the town of
Folsom, or Lake Tahoe or Grants Pass - all river towns that really match
well - their setting along the river with the current trends in style and
architecture. Just do that. Along with all of the other new upgraded
stylings that will be along the RIverfront.



4) Just lets have an upgraded river look to current standards. Again - take
notes from other river towns across the western states. Seattle -
Sacramento - Tahoe - Folsom - even SF. City of Redding and all involved
just did a spectacular job of refurbishing and making modern - the Redding
downtown presentation, architecture and fun/food/stores stylings.



5) The building with Urban Retreat and other businesses - I think that can
STAY. ITs modernized enough, but could be touched up to current day
style/trends somewhat easily. Also, make that makeshift beach out front of
it where people jetski (adjacent to aqua golf) - to like a REAL beach.
Maybe even a nice beach with some vendors along it, even nice restaurants
there. Not sure why this hasnt been done already there. Make one or two of
those building spaces (again, where Urban Retreat is) into nice viewing
restaurants of coffee shops of the river/lagoon there. That area is being
UNDER-used right now, not currently for this purpose. Focus needs to be on
the river there - the cliffs across the river. Its beautiful there and is
being under-focused on and appreciated right now. And it should be and
should always have been. Gotta put some restaurants and coffee shops in
general all along the riverfront there. And that beach location is a
starting point. I know a private owner owns that right now - so may take
some fenagling on that one. But you get the idea.



6) Ok the old ancient A-frame buildings where The Beadman and that old
Karate studio was - need to GO. I hate to say this because they are old
school and KINDA cool, but edging on uncool and too old as they have not
been kept up, which seems odd, as they are cool buildings similar aged and
architecture from the era of that island restaurant (70s). So those need to
go. They are beat up and ugly now and could and should be transformed into
something really cool and modernized. But like NATURAL modernized as they
are on the river and should match that setting. Again - take notes from the
cool river towns that have already done this. That should be the theme -
dont go out on your own and think you can come up with something cool,
because that often goes horribly wrong for any planning groups here in the
northern interior 7 counties. Use existing examples right here in
California of how you match the water/nature setting with modernized
architecture. There is a blend. See Lake Tahoe for great examples of this.
And downtown Sacramento riverfront.



7) Just an overhaul of Park Marina Drive - the road itself. Its a cool
meandering road which I think should stay - But lets modernize the road to
current day very nice standards - like you did in the downtown of Redding.
Shiny - new - fun - cool.



8) Im running out of time as the 5pm timeline is nearly upon me here on
March 2. Gosh - Some quick final thoughts:



- Make access to the river easier along the RIverfront planning stretch.
Some trails down to the river with a few open areas people can hang out at -
beach spots. BBQ pits. I know homeless come into these spots, but this
needs to happen. Redding can control the homeless here. But this is
important so more people can enjoy the river. Again - theres the spot in
front of Urban Retreat thats great - but should be WAY upgraded made more
modern. And many other access spots - just add a few.

-Not sure what to do about those lawyer buildings on the south end, or that
weird mobile home park there. I know people wont like me saying that that
thing just needs to go. Or modernize that and make it up to current LOOK
standards. Its flat ugly. Beautify it.

-Connect the Sundial area over to the Riverfront area with upgraded trails
and signage along it with nice font and distance signs to locations along
the riverfront. Thats important to connect those two areas as smoothly as
possible.

Note: None of the commentary and suggestions above were created by AI. Just
hard working, hard thinking planner at work here.

Dear Director Pagan,

It’s clear the City of Redding has put a lot of time and effort into the
Redding Riverfront Specific Plan update. I’m writing as a lifelong Redding
resident with the intention of making the EIR process stronger and the
scope more complete.

Please ensure the scope includes the following in the EIR analysis of potential
impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures:

- The EIR must analyze the Riverfront as an Indigenous cultural
landscape, not just individual archeological sites.
- The EIR must analyze whether increased development and visitor
activity could interfere with Indigenous ceremony, gathering, healing, and
access to the river.
- The EIR must analyze impacts to salmon, native plants, animals, water
quality, and flooding, recognizing these as cultural keystone species and
systems.
- The EIR must ensure tribal and tribal community voices’ consultation
meaningfully shapes alternatives, mitigation and land use decisions.
- The Program EIR must analyze the outer bounds of development intensity
to prevent improper tiering of future projects.
-

Sincerely,

Good afternoon,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share several ideas for
consideration as plans move forward for the proposed Redding Riverfront
project. As a life-long Redding native, I appreciate the opportunity to
contribute input that I believe could enhance both functionality and
long-term community value.

As development progresses, I would love to see consideration of the
following additions:

- *Multi-use community space* that can serve as a venue for public
meetings, educational workshops, and local events such as weddings.
- *Entertainment* including other outdoor activities like Aqua Golf,
museums, art exhibits.
- *Seasonal Events *such as carrying the Turtle Bay christmas lights to
the south side of the river as well, 4th of July Firework viewing events,
Kool April Nights Show & Shine events, Art walks, and community scavenger
hunts.
- *Dedicated small business or local vendor areas* to support economic
growth within our community.
- *Outdoor riverfront dining spaces* with shaded seating and accessible
walkways to promote inclusivity and year-round usability such as cafés,
micropubs, and bistros with casual attire.
- *Turtle Bay Bike Trail connection infrastructure* that connects the
new bike trail project from Turtle Bay to the historical Garden Tract.

Likeminded projects of similar scale that would be excellent inspiration
for this project are the Riverwalk District in Reno and the Indian Creek
Plaza in Caldwell, Idaho.

Thoughtful integration of these elements could increase public engagement,
maximize the riverfront property's versatility, and ensure the community
improvements remain beneficial for decades to come.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these ideas further or
participate in any community input sessions related to this development.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Good Morning,
Regarding any proposed development in the Riverfront area from kayak launch south to cypress bridge, please remember how important the preservation and restoration of the natural environment has ranked in any of the public meetings that have been held. This ethic should be part of the goals of the plan in general. So please honor that need while looking at all impacts on fish and wildlife including birds, and their native habitats. "Multi-use" is not necessarily good to be implemented everywhere.
Thank you.

Dear Jeremy Pagan,

Thank you for asking the public to comment or share ideas for what include
in the Environmental Impact Review for the Redding riverfront area.

I think the Whiskeytown Environmental School Rebuild Environmental
Assessment Chapter 3 is a model that your team should consult for
identifying areas to research in your own plan. Please view the
complete plan here
.
Key elements of this plan included:

- a list of all of the threatened and endangered species that could be
impacted by the development
- flood plain assessments showing the path of 50 and 100-year floods as
well as the impact of any pulse releases from the nearby dam
- cultural resources - impact on an indigenous people, practices, and
historically significant areas

I am especially concerned about the impact of pulses, or fast moving water,
released from the Shasta dam. Last year, when the current administration
thought LA needed water, water was released into the Sacramento River when
it was already high and fast-moving. This resulted in major damage to the
Nur Pon park, which the City of Redding was responsible for repairing.
Given the national control over Shasta Dam and wide spanning regional
interest in the Sacramento River, how can we be sure that development near
the River won't be damaged -- with the cost to Redding to repair--when
other jurisdictions deem their needs and interests more important?

I also wonder how the timing of multiple impacts and shocks to the
Sacramento have been considered in this project. From what I understand,
major projects are planned in the Redding area along the Sacramento
corridor at least three locations -- the new Casino, the proposed new
jail/work release site, and this project. The river is sensitive to such
impacts, and impacts in several locations at once may have a multiplicative
impact.

Redding’s pattern of continually shifting commercial hubs raises important
environmental questions that deserve more explicit consideration. As new
development is encouraged in one part of the city, older commercial areas
are left with vacant or aging buildings—some of which are ultimately
demolished, as we saw with the former Costco site. Demolition and disposal
of building materials carry substantial environmental impacts, just as
constructing new facilities does.

Revitalization of existing commercial areas typically has a much smaller
environmental footprint than abandoning older sites and building new ones.
If the City is exploring a shift of commerce toward the riverfront, it is
important to evaluate how this transition may accelerate decline in older
hubs and create cumulative environmental impacts across multiple parts of
the city. Without a strategy for reinvestment or adaptive reuse, we risk
trading one set of environmental burdens for another.
Thank you for your consideration.
--

Dear City of Redding Planning Staff,

I amwriting to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) forthe Sacramento Riverfront Specific Plan. I respectfully request that the EIRaddress the following key issues:
·        Riparian Habitat Protection:  TheEIR must analyze impacts to riparian habitat and the Sacramento River corridor,including increased human use, lighting, noise, and shoreline disturbance. Tothe maximum extent feasible, existing high-quality riparian habitat must be avoided and protected. This habitat is irreplaceable and represents one of theCity of Redding’s most valuable natural assets. The loss of any high-qualityhabitat should be treated as significant. Remaining high-quality habitats, such as this one, and Anderson River Park, must be clearly identified to provide context regarding the extent of high-quality habitat that currently exists and what would remain under the Specific Plan.
·        Wildlife Considerations: The EIR must evaluate impacts to wildlifemovement corridors, including effects on birds, with bald eagles as a keyconsideration, as well as the potential effects on other nesting and migratoryspecies. The EIR must also evaluate impacts on mammals, including bats, andfish, particularly, salmon.

·        Cumulative Impacts & Long-Term Protection: The EIR must consider cumulative impacts frommultiple future projects allowed under the Specific Plan, including priordeveloped projects, rather than assessing individual projects in isolation. Itshould also evaluate long-term protection tools such as conservation easements.Mitigation measures should include enforceable performance standards andlong-term monitoring to ensure effectiveness.
·        Traffic,Emergency Access & Wildfire Evacuation: The EIR must analyze impacts on traffic,emergency access, and wildfire evacuation routes for nearby residents,particularly during peak recreation or event periods.
·         Urban Heat Effects: The EIR must analyze increased heat resulting fromconcrete, asphalt, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces, and how theselocalized heat impacts may affect habitat quality and wildlife behavior.
·        ClimateChange Impacts & Cumulative Effects: The EIR must evaluate how projected climate change—includingincreased temperatures, more frequent extreme weather events, alteredhydrology, and prolonged drought—could cumulatively affect the river corridor,riparian habitat, wildlife, infrastructure, and community safety. This analysisshould consider how climate stressors may compound the impacts of futuredevelopment allowed under the Specific Plan, rather than evaluating climateeffects in isolation.

·        Qualified Biological & Botanical Studies: The EIR must ensure that all biological andbotanical evaluations are conducted by qualified professionals during theappropriate seasonal and life-cycle periods. Reliance on reports conductedoutside appropriate seasonal timing can result in incomplete or inaccurateenvironmental analysis.

·        Water Quality & Stormwater Runoff: The EIR must evaluate impacts, includingcumulative impacts, to water quality from increased impervious surfaces,stormwater runoff, sedimentation, and potential pollutants entering theSacramento River. The analysis should consider effects on aquatic habitat,including salmon and other native fish species, and evaluate long-termmanagement measures to prevent degradation of river health.

·        Water Use, Drought Preparedness & NativeLandscaping: The EIR mustevaluate projected water demand associated with landscaping and ongoingmaintenance under the Specific Plan, particularly during drought conditions. Itshould prioritize the use of native, climate-adapted, and low-water plantspecies in all landscaped areas outside designated habitat restoration zones,rather than high-water demand ornamental plantings. The EIR must also analyzehow the City will prepare for and manage drought scenarios to ensure thatlandscaping and project operations do not place additional strain on limitedwater resources.

·        Cultural & Indigenous Significance: The EIR should recognize the riverfront as aliving cultural landscape with ongoing Indigenous significance and meaningfullyincorporate Indigenous perspectives into planning and stewardship.

Thankyou for your attention to these important considerations. I urge the City toensure that the EIR provides a thorough, scientifically sound analysis thatsafeguards the Sacramento River, its wildlife, and its cultural and ecologicalsignificance for current and future generations.
Sincerely,

Dear Director Pagan,

I am writing as a concerned community member whose family has lived in the Redding area since time immemorial. I am writing with the intention of making the EIR process stronger and the scope more complete.

Please ensure that the scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes the following:

- *Integrated Indigenous Cultural Landscape*: The EIR must analyze the Riverfront as an integrated Indigenous cultural landscape rather than isolated sites. This analysis must acknowledge that a lack of visible artifacts does not equate to the absence of burial sites or ancestral remains and must evaluate how increased activity may interfere with Indigenous ceremony, gathering, and traditional land stewardship.
- *Legally Robust Tribal Consultation*: In accordance with Assembly Bill 52 and General Plan Policy NR9A, the City must ensure that meaningful, ongoing consultation with both recognized and unrecognized local Wintu tribes directly shapes land-use decisions and project alternatives.
- *Protection of Cultural Keystone Species and Habitats*: The EIR must prioritize the protection of cultural keystone species—including salmon, native plants, and diverse animal habitats—while assessing if new development or infrastructure would undermine existing or proposed restoration and "re-wilding" efforts.
- *Binding Mitigation and Conservation Alternatives*: The analysis should evaluate a specific conservation-first alternative that utilizes
binding mitigation, such as conservation easements, to protect environmentally sensitive areas from the impacts of noise, light, and
"intense uses".
- *Prevention of Improper Tiering and Vague Analysis:* To ensure CEQA compliance, this Program EIR must define the "outer bounds" of development intensity and clearly describe the scale and location of all potential uses. This is critical to prevent future site-specific projects from "tiering" off a vague analysis to avoid necessary detailed environmental review later.
The Redding Riverfront is a special place, and it is vital that this planning process accurately reflects the community's desire for a healthy, resilient natural environment and deep respect for the Indigenous community.
Sincerely,

Dear Director Pagan,

Thank you for your ongoing efforts to produce a fair vision for the Riverfront. The River Specific Plan development has been quite the journey.

I am writing to you as a community member who has been a part of the working groups for the General Plan, and who has been along this important process to design a sustainable and equitable Riverfront plan.

I share the following comments to help make the EIR process thorough, adequate and comprehensive.

Please ensure the scope includes the following in the EIR analysis of potential impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures:

The EIR must analyze the entirety of the Riverfront as an Indigenous cultural landscape, not just individual archeological sites, also understanding that existing surface level disturbance does not negate the need to survey the area for cultural resources above and below surface, while also accounting for the historical and contemporary Indigenous community presence, management, and relationship with the are of study.
The EIR must analyze whether increased development and visitor activity could interfere with Indigenous ceremony, gathering, healing, and access to the river, and clearly describe what types of things can be built within the plan’s area, where, and how intense their uses could become.
The EIR must analyze impacts to fisheries including trout, steelhead, salmon, sucker fish and other species, native plants including but not limited to elderberry, cottonwood, yerba Santa, various species of willow, Oregon ash, pines, valley and blue oak, sedges, rushes and other plants, animals including and not limited to, skunk, deer, beaver, fox, coyote, muskrat, rabbit, eagles, various hawks, various water fowl and song birds, and others, that frequent the area.
The EIR must include an option of no new development and instead prioritizes open space, land, water and animal protection and conservation and include traditional Indigenous cultural use.
The EIR must ensure tribal and tribal community voices’ consultation meaningfully shapes alternatives, mitigation and land use decisions.
The EIR must analyze how development or future development of roads, trails, lighting, noise, events and construction could harm and disturb ancestral remains, burial areas, sacred places, and other cultural resources.
The EIR must analyze whether subsequent projects exceeding program assumptions, including if the site is designated as “Surplus Property” and the State’s the relaxed CEQA process for affordable housing development, will require supplemental EIRs, and on what basis this decision will be made.

As a reminder: The EIR must be consistent with the City of Redding General Plan 2045 Policy NR9A: “Strive to ensure the protection of prehistoric, cultural and archeological resources during the development process. Consult with local Wintu tribes as appropriate to help identify and preserve cultural resources during the development review process.” This must include both recognized and unrecognized tribes and Indigenous Wintu community members.

The EIR must be consistent with City of Redding General Plan 2045 Goal NR4: Preserve and protect significant habitats, plants, and wildlife that exist in the Planning Area, including:
NR4A – Avoid development-related disturbances of sensitive habitats and “special status species” by encouraging innovative site design and planning. Ensure implementation of statutory protection for these species and require appropriate mitigation if disturbed.

NR4B – Prioritize the preservation and enhancement of the fisheries of the Sacramento River and those tributary streams and stream segments depicted in Figure NR-1 and/or other streams or water bodies identified by appropriate regulatory agencies.
NR4D – Provide adequate buffering of sensitive habitats based on the type of habitat, its size, value and requirements of regulatory agencies. Work with other agencies and organizations as appropriate to establish habitat mitigation banks, habitat conservation plans, conservation easements, and other mechanisms that serve to protect sensitive habitats and species.
NR4F –City-owned properties that contain environmentally sensitive areas should be retained, placed in conservation easements, or otherwise protected from urban encroachment.

The EIR must be consistent with City of Redding General Plan 2045 Goal NR5: Protect and preserve creek corridors, riparian areas, vernal pools, and wetlands.
NR5A – Continue to require new development to provide at least the minimum river and creek corridor development setbacks (buffer areas) in accordance with Figure NR-1 and the Redding
Municipal Code (RMC). These setbacks may be modified based on project/resource-specific circumstances and appropriate mitigation. Consider requiring dedication of these areas to the City for open space and public uses and/or establish a permanent conservation easement granted to the City or other appropriate organizations as a condition of development approval.

NR5B – In addition to the protection of the stream corridors depicted in Figure NR-1, work with project developers to also protect those secondary stream tributaries depicted in Figure NR-4, vernal pools, riparian habitats, and wetlands in their natural state, to the extent feasible. Where appropriate, undertake restoration and require development buffers from these resources. The mitigation of all adverse impacts on wetland resources, and if applicable, special status species, is
required in compliance with State and Federal regulations protecting such resources.
NR5C – Encourage the acquisition, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of native vegetation with a focus on wetlands and riparian habitat that will improve the biological value and
integrity of the City’s natural resources. Encourage native landscape in unvegetated, manmade areas, such as along streets and in abandoned lots.
NR5D – Uses allowed within riparian corridors should:
Minimize the creation of erosion, sedimentation, and increased runoff.
Emphasize retention and enhancement of natural riparian vegetation.
Provide for unimpaired passage of fish and wildlife.
Avoid activities or the development of new features that result in disturbance or dispersal of wildlife.
Avoid channelization to the extent feasible, except as may be necessary to preserve public safety.
Avoid substantial interference with surface and subsurface flows.Incorporate natural vegetation buffers.

The EIR must be consistent with City of Redding General Plan 2045 Goal NR6: Protect the aesthetic and biological value of Oak Woodlands and other natural vegetation and establish a healthy and robust urban forest.

NR6A – Strive to preserve and protect existing native oaks, especially valley oaks that are often associated with riparian habitats, in the design and review of development projects. The
preservation of stands of trees within developments is generally preferred over the preservation of individual trees, with the exception of special-status species, heritage trees, and other trees as may be identified in the City’s Municipal Code.
NR6D – Protect and manage the urban forest to reduce energy demand, increase carbon sequestration, and reduce urban heat gain.

The EIR must be consistent with City of Redding General Plan 2045 Goal NR7: Protect habitat linkages and migratory corridors.

NR7A – Maintain, preserve, and enhance the habitat linkages/wildlife corridors and sensitive habitats that are created by the open-space (“Greenway”) network established by this General Plan. Require that development in areas defined as “Greenway” consider corridor impacts and, where necessary, provide alternate usable links between habitat types or areas and/or provide alternate development plans that avoid the open-space network and sensitive habitats.
NR7B – Maintain and preserve other natural habitat linkages and wildlife corridors in the City where feasible. Discourage development impacts to these linkages and corridors and fully mitigate adverse impacts.

Thank you for receiving these comments,

Dear Director Pagan,

It’s clear the City of Redding has put a lot of time and effort into the
Redding Riverfront Specific Plan update. I’m writing as a local Wintu
tribal member with the intention of making the EIR process stronger and the
scope more complete.

Please ensure the scope includes the following in the EIR analysis of potential
impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures:

- The EIR must analyze the Riverfront as an Indigenous cultural
landscape, not just individual archeological sites.
- The EIR must analyze whether increased development and visitor
activity could interfere with Indigenous ceremony, gathering, healing, and
access to the river.
- The ERI must consider Indigenous access as caretakers of the land, not
only consider public recreation access.
- The EIR must analyze mitigation measures to include conservation
easements.
- The EIR must analyze impacts to salmon, native plants, animals, water
quality, and flooding, recognizing these as cultural keystone species and
systems.
- The EIR must include an alternative that prioritizes conservation and
Indigenous cultural use and avoids further development in the Northern
Riverfront.
- The EIR must explain how tribes and tribal community voices will
continue to be included in decisions, not just consulted once. The
“Northern Riverfront Partnership” that is floated in the Emerging
Concepts presentation

is
vague in this regard.
- The EIR must ensure tribal and tribal community voices’ consultation
meaningfully shapes alternatives, mitigation and land use decisions.
- The EIR must acknowledge that past disturbance or lack of visible
artifacts does not mean cultural or burial sites are absent, especially
along the Sacramento River.
- The EIR must analyze how roads, trails, lighting, noise, events and
construction could disturb ancestral remains, burial areas, and sacred
places.
- The EIR must not rely only on surface surveys to dismiss cultural
impacts.
- The EIR must be consistent with the City of Redding General Plan 2045
Policy NR9A: “Strive to ensure the protection of prehistoric, cultural and
archeological resources during the development process. Consult with
local Wintu tribes as appropriate to help identify and preserve cultural
resources during the development review process.” Since future projects
considered to be consistent with the Program EIR will have a streamlined
development review process, this is especially important now. This must
include both recognized and unrecognized tribes.

Sincerely,

Regarding the City of Redding Riverfront Specific Plan, I have two concerns
regarding the plan.

*Northwestern Pond Turtles:* The Riverfront Specific Plan involves
developing areas along the Sacramento River that are currently naturally
vegetated. From what I've seen, the plan does incorporate riparian
setbacks and other things to prevent direct impacts to the River and the
species that rely on it. However, in the context of northwestern pond
turtles *(Actinemys marmorata)*, this is not likely to be a sufficient
protection to prevent impacts to the species.

Northwestern pond turtles are Proposed Threatened at the federal level and
Species of Special Concern at the state level. These turtles rely on
permanent or relatively permanent water, and are known to utilize the
Sacramento River in and near the Riverfront Specific Plan area.
Northwestern pond turtles also rely on suitable upland habitat for nesting
and overwintering activities. Developing within the Riverfront Specific
Plan area would absolutely place potential Northwestern Pond Turtle habitat
in the crosshairs for development.

While preconstruction surveys can be used to minimize impacts to individual
turtles, nests, and eggs, the species is still likely to be affected by
riverfront development for two reasons. First, northwestern pond turtles
are extremely skittish and therefore are difficult to detect even via
surveys. This is doubly true for juveniles and nests. Secondly, due to
the "ecology of fear", northwestern pond turtles will likely leave
physically suitable habitat unutilized due to the increased human activity
in the Riverfront Specific Plan Area.

The Riverfront Specific Plan EIR must address issues to Northwestern Pond
Turtles, including physical habitat loss, potential incidental mortality,
and human presence-related reduction of habitat use. Given that the
Northwestern Pond Turtle is the namesake of Turtle Bay, it would be
disastrous for our community to impact this species. Impacts must either
be avoided or substantially mitigated.

*Anadramous Fish, 6PPD-quinone, and other Road Runoff:*
In its current state, the Sacramento River is an economic engine for the
City of Redding. The natural landscape and especially the fishing
opportunities draw people from around the world to our region. Therefore,
there would be a significant economic impact if the Redding Riverfront
Specific Plan caused a reduction in the population or viability of the
River's anadramous fish including Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, and
Steelhead.

Recent studies have showns that the compound 6PPD-quinone -- a component of
road runoff generated by the breakdown of vehicle tires on the road --
causes mortality to Coho, Chinook, and steelhead. The study can be found
here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00467?ref=pdf

Left untreated, this runoff will degrade our salmon populations and render
the efforts of our Riverfront Specific Plan fruitless. It is not enough to
just prepare a drainage study that prevents flooding and/or directs runoff
to detention basins. Functional bioswales need to be incorporated into the
design of the Riverfront Specific Plan for every planned business that
develops along the riverfront. Furthermore, natural vegetation must remain
intact whenever possible to augment the runoff filtering processes.

The Riverfront Specific Plan EIR must address impacts to anadromous fish
from road runoff (and especially 6PPD-quinone), and the EIR must
incorporate the use of bioswales to filter, not just slow down, road
runoff. Turning a naturally vegetated area into a flashy, asphalt-paved
area laden with contaminants will inevitably hurt the river and the
anadromous fish that depend on it.

Dear Director Pagan,

It’s clear the City of Redding has put a lot of time and effort into the
Redding Riverfront Specific Plan update. I’m writing as a Citizen of
Greenville Rancheria a Federally Recognized Tribe with descendants of the
Wintu People from Shasta County. I am also a Grandmother-Nakoto of 3,
wife, and mother as well as a protector of the land and I'm writing with
the intention of making the EIR process stronger and the scope more
complete.

Please ensure the scope includes the following in the EIR analysis
of potential impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures:



- The EIR must analyze the Riverfront as an Indigenous cultural
landscape, not just individual archeological sites.
- The EIR must analyze whether increased development and visitor
activity could interfere with Indigenous ceremony, gathering, healing, and
access to the river.
- The ERI must consider Indigenous access as caretakers of the land, not
only consider public recreation access.
- The EIR must analyze impacts to salmon, native plants, animals, water
quality, and flooding, recognizing these as cultural keystone species and
systems.
- The EIR must clearly describe what could be built, where, and how
intense uses could become, rather than leaving decisions vague.
- The EIR must include an alternative that prioritizes conservation and
Indigenous cultural use and avoids further development in the Northern
Riverfront.
- The EIR must explain how tribes and tribal community voices will
continue to be included in decisions, not just consulted once. The
“Northern Riverfront Partnership” that is floated in the Emerging
Concepts presentation

is
vague in this regard.
- The EIR must ensure tribal and tribal community voices’ consultation
meaningfully shapes alternatives, mitigation and land use decisions.
- The EIR must acknowledge that past disturbance or lack of visible
artifacts does not mean cultural or burial sites are absent, especially
along the Sacramento River.
- The EIR must analyze how roads, trails, lighting, noise, events and
construction could disturb ancestral remains, burial areas, and sacred
places.
- The EIR must not rely only on surface surveys to dismiss cultural
impacts.
- The EIR must analyze whether subsequent projects exceeding program
assumptions will require supplemental EIRs, and on what basis this decision
will be made.
- The EIR must be consistent with the City of Redding General Plan 2045
Policy NR9A: “Strive to ensure the protection of prehistoric, cultural and
archeological resources during the development process. Consult with local
Wintu tribes as appropriate to help identify and preserve cultural
resources during the development review process.” Since future projects
considered to be consistent with the Program EIR will have a streamlined
development review process, this is especially important now. This must
include both recognized and unrecognized tribes.
- Following the California Law under SB 18 and AB 52,
- California cities must comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and federal laws like the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) when projects involve federal funding, permits, or land. AB 52
requires mandatory tribal consultation for projects, addressing tribal
cultural resources to align with federal standards, often requiring
studies, mitigation, and public review for environmental impacts.
Key Federal and Related Regulations
- NEPA

(National
Environmental Policy Act): Triggered when a project involves federal
agencies, funding, or permits, requiring an Environmental Impact
Statement
(EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA).
- NHPA

Section
106: Requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their
actions on historic properties, including tribal cultural resources, and
consult with tribes.
- AB 52

(CEQA
Amendment): Requires California lead agencies to consult with
California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to identify and
mitigate impacts on tribal cultural resources.
- AIRFA

(American
Indian Religious Freedom Act): Protects Native American religious
practices and sacred sites.
- NAGPRA

(Native
American Graves and Repatriation Act): Governs the protection and
repatriation of Native American human remains and cultural items.
Key Procedural Requirements
- Tribal Consultation: Must occur before the release of CEQA documents
if requested by a tribe, aiming to reach agreement on mitigation measures.
- Identification of Resources: Projects must evaluate impacts on
tribal cultural resources, often requiring consultation with the Native
American Heritage Commission.
- Mitigation: If a project has significant effects on the environment
or cultural resources, the lead agency must adopt measures to avoid or
reduce those impacts.
- Public Participation: CEQA requires opportunities for public review
and input, including for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs).

Sincerely,

First of all, my preference would be to change nothing-to leave the entire area as it is. I can't see any point in making the area an entertainment or hospitality venue as that is what the development of downtown seems to be and that is where such things belong. What makes Redding special is the open space and nature and wildlife corridor.
An EIR must be thorough and done by an objective and knowledgeable professional, not someone known to be slanted toward developers. Otherwise it will have no credibility.
Redding has a history of developing areas, then developing another area which takes the public away from the first area and creates blight.
Downtown is for the nightlife. The Riverfront area is for wildlife, open space, a break from development.

A few concerns I have are the following:
* Protecting the riparian area along the water's edge to keep the scenery
green and beautiful
* A walkway along the river riparian area that is wide enough for couples
to walk easily past each other
* Adequate trash cans along the way to keep the area clean
* Making sure the whole area has adequate cell phone service for safety
* invite nature groups like Audubon, Sierra Club, Eco Shasta, Native Plant
Society, etc. to have representatives on a volunteer group called something
like "Friends of Riverfront" to present to the county on an annual basis
suggestions for nature improvements for birds, etc. and perhaps even help
with grant writing for those improvements the county agrees with.

Thank you for taking comments!

Mr. Pagan,

I live in Anderson and work in Redding, and I am writing about the Environmental Impact Report for the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan.

I use the riverfront to walk, birdwatch, meetfriends, and to simply enjoy the sights and sounds of nature. I value the wildareas: the trees along the bank, the foliage filled with native birds, the windbeing heard in the leaves and squirrels chattering in the branches. Access tothis area is extremely important to me. It is part of my regular life.

If the riverfront is planned primarily as a visitorhospitality and events hub, with more hotels, restaurants, large events, andpaid or event parking, I am concerned that the community will lose regular useby local residents, quiet places along the water, and important wildlife corridorsfor non-human animals. These changes would directly affect how people and wildlife can use the riverfront in the future.

I ask that the Environmental Impact Report clearly evaluatehow the hospitality and events concept would affect existing everyday uses bylocal residents and compare it with an alternative that keeps more of theriverfront in open space, habitat, and regular community use rather thanfocusing mainly on visitors and events.

In addition, the EIR must evaluate the protection ofriparian areas as a goal of the Plan, not only as mitigation for landuses permitted by the Plan. It must also analyze impacts to wildlife movementcorridors, including effects on birds, bats, and fish. The evaluation of hownight-time lighting and noise pollution near the river could disrupt wildlifebehavior, nesting birds, and migration is also necessary.
Thank you for considering my comments.

Dear Mr. Pagan,

We are a couple who live in the Bonnyview neighborhood and one of us is a
former resident of the Parkview neighborhood. We are writing to comment on
the EIR for the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan.

We currently use the riverfront to walk, bike, and spend time with
friends/family in a peaceful natural setting. We enjoy seeing native
wildlife as well as a healthy river ecosystem with functional native
floodplain vegetation.

An EIR for this largescale plan must analyze impacts to the riparian
habitat and river corridor, and it must evaluate what impacts increased
human use and shoreline disturbance will have on native vegetation,
wildlife, and habitat features used by native species. The EIR must
evaluate how future development and events could affect nesting birds,
migratory birds, and species protected under state and federal law. Such
evaluations must take into account not only direct effects of construction
but also the effects that increased noise, light, and human activity will
have on wildlife. Since the project is on the riverfront, the EIR must
evaluate and place priority on ecological impacts involving water quality,
runoff, and erosion in the long term as well as during construction.

The Redding Riverfront is a special place, and it is important to us that
it be safeguarded for future generations to enjoy. To provide this
stewardship and continued access for locals, the EIR must evaluate
permanent protection tools, such as conservation easements, to safeguard
riparian areas over the long term. The EIR must also analyze cumulative
impacts from multiple future projects allowed under the Specific Plan, not
just individual projects in isolation.

An EIR that requires thorough evaluation of environmental impacts would
help make the Riverfront Specific Plan a successful and sustainable
revitalization project for our City. Conversely, an EIR that does not
properly take environmental impacts into account will cause degradation of
the Riverfront that is not in the best interest of our City nor the many
people that enjoy spending time in its natural public spaces.

Thank you for considering our comments,

Comments on Scope of Program EIR for Redding Riverfront Specific Plan
Dear Director Pagan,

I am grateful for the time and effort that City of Redding staff have invested in the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan update. I am a community member, an executive leader at a local Indigenous non-profit, and a weekly Riverfront walker who has led a weekly community walk/run group in this area for the past twelve years. I care deeply about the long-term integrity of the Riverfront and am committed to doing my part to protect this treasured community space for generations to come.

I, along with many others in the community, have attended meetings and provided testimony because this place matters deeply to us. As the City moves forward with preparation of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), I am submitting the following comments to ensure the scope of analysis of potential impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures is sufficient, transparent, and meaningful.

Please ensure that the Program EIR includes analysis of the following potential impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures:

Indigenous Cultural Landscape
The EIR must analyze the Riverfront as an Indigenous cultural landscape as a whole, not just as a collection of isolated archaeological sites.

Indigenous Access and Use
The EIR must evaluate whether increased development, infrastructure, and visitor activity could interfere with Indigenous ceremony, gathering, healing practices, and access to the Sacramento River. The EIR must provide Indigenous access from the perspective of Indigenous community as caretakers of the land, not only as members of the recreating public.

Indigenous Continued Inclusion
The EIR must explain how tribes and tribal community voices will continue to be included in decisions, not just consulted once. The “Northern Riverfront Partnership” that is floated in the Emerging Concepts presentation is vague in this regard. The EIR must honor the deep Indigenous cultural connections to the Redding Riverfront area, by consulting with Indigenous community and including them in land use, habitat protection, recreation, and cultural landscapes discussions, meetings and decisions.
Cultural and Ecological Resources
The EIR must analyze impacts to salmon, native plants, wildlife, water quality, and flooding, recognizing these as culturally significant keystone species and interconnected systems.

Consult with local Wintu tribes
The EIR must be consistent with the City of Redding General Plan 2045 Policy NR9A: “Strive to ensure the protection of prehistoric, cultural and archeological resources during the development process. Consult with local Wintu tribes as appropriate to help identify and preserve cultural resources during the development review process.” Since future projects considered to be consistent with the Program EIR will have a streamlined development review process, this is especially important now. This must include both recognized and unrecognized tribes.

Given that future projects consistent with the Program EIR may receive streamlined environmental review, it is especially important that these issues are fully addressed now. A thorough and inclusive Program EIR is essential to protecting cultural, ecological, and community values along the Riverfront.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments and for your continued work on this important effort.

Respectfully,




Advancing Indigenous-centered Pathways for Just and Vibrant Communities

Bring Acornomics to Life:
Donate & Support Our Work

www.nativerootsnetwork.org
www.facebook.com/nativerootsnetwor k

Native Roots Network Inc., a 501(c)3 non-profit organization

Dear Director Pagan,

I applaud the effort the City of Redding has already put into updating the
Redding Riverfront Specific Plan. I’ve lived in downtown Redding for the
last 12 years and am raising my family here. We spend a lot of time at the
Riverfront - we are always at Turtle Bay with our young kids, I regularly
walk the river trail with friends, and going to see the holiday lights has
become a tradition for our extended family. Additionally, we are friends
with many folks who have Indigenous roots in this area and understand the
Riverfront holds specific cultural importance to them. As someone who
regularly enjoys the Riverfront and cares about the culture of her friends
and neighbors, I am invested in the EIR process being done well.

The City's ERI analysis must do the following:

1. analyze mitigation measures to include conservation easements;
2. clearly describe what could be built, where, and how intense uses
could become, rather than leaving decisions vague;
3. explain how tribes and tribal community voices will continue to be
included in decisions, not just consulted once. The “Northern Riverfront
Partnership” that is floated in the Emerging Concepts presentation

is
vague in this regard;
4. analyze how roads, trails, lighting, noise, events and construction
could disturb ancestral remains, burial areas, and sacred places;
5. evaluate whether restoration efforts would be undermined by future
development or access infrastructure.

Sincerely,

Dear Director Pagan,

It’s clear the City of Redding has put a lot of time and effort into the
Redding Riverfront Specific Plan update. I’m writing as a Redding resident
living in downtown who is concerned about how the Riverfront redevelopment
will impact my family’s enjoyment of the natural environment and I have the
intention of making the EIR process stronger and the scope more complete.

Please ensure the scope includes the following in the EIR analysis of potential
impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures:

-

The EIR must analyze mitigation measures to include conservation
easements, and indigenous land management strategies.
-

The EIR must evaluate whether restoration efforts would be undermined by
future development or access infrastructure.
-

The Program EIR must analyze the outer bounds of development intensity
to prevent improper tiering of future projects.
-

The Program EIR must clarify what level of environmental review will be
required for individual projects in the future.
-

The EIR must analyze whether subsequent projects exceeding program
assumptions will require supplemental EIRs, and on what basis this decision
will be made.

Thank you for your time and attention to the important task of setting up a
consistent set of rules to ensure that future development restores the
natural environment destroyed by historical mining and the values
indigenous perspectives.


Sincerely,

Dear Director Pagan,

Thank you for the effort you and project staff have put into the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan update. I’m writing as a long-term resident of the City of Redding with the intention of making the EIR process stronger and the scope more complete.

Please ensure the scope includes the following in the EIR analysis of potential impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures:

- The EIR must clearly describe what could be built, where, and how intense uses could become, rather than leaving decisions vague.
- The EIR must analyze impacts to salmon, native plants, animals, water quality, and flooding, recognizing these as cultural keystone species and systems.
- The EIR must analyze the Riverfront as an Indigenous cultural landscape, not just individual archeological sites.
- The EIR must include an alternative that prioritizes conservation and Indigenous cultural use and avoids further development in the Northern Riverfront.
- The Program EIR must clarify what level of environmental review will be required for individual projects in the future.
- The EIR must be consistent with the City of Redding General Plan 2045 Policy NR9A: “Strive to ensure the protection of prehistoric, cultural and archeological resources during the development process. Consult with local Wintu tribes as appropriate to help identify and preserve cultural resources during the development review process.” Since future projects
considered to be consistent with the Program EIR will have a streamlined development review process, this is especially important now. This must include both Federally recognized and unrecognized local tribes.

In appreciation,

Regarding an Environmental Impact Report for the west bank of the Sacramento River from the Boat Ramp at the Redding Rodeo Grounds to the Cypress St. Bridge, I am most interested in preserving the natural river and its environs. We must protect the river habitat for the fish and the riparian habitat for the wildlife, especially all bird life, and native plants. To sacrifice any natural element of the river is to compromise its contributions to our natural world with all of its connections.

Greetings to all,

I am writing you to urge you to prioritize the unique and important wilderness and animal habitats in the Sacramento River area and all of Northern CA. Man must be careful to create around nature and preserve the open areas for oxygen, the animals and ecosystems for the renewing life the bring to us as humans. 
I believe true advancements can only be made in harmony with the earth and all on it without leaving pollution, extinctions, and destruction of nature. 

The best ideal to me is a buffer to isolate the industrial and living and entertainment of people from disturbing and dangerous to these so necessary natural environments. This includes no noise, lights, people encroaching upon these sensitive ecosystems that are so entwined and of a fragile balance that if care is not taken now it can never be replaced. 

Where do you get a new marshland if you destroy them?  And if that’s not good enough reason - damaging nature ecosystems and animals and birds ruins your tourism revenue.
 
Ensure you protect animals and land please.  The back alley deal protect animals but not the habitats roe LAND THEY LIVE ON does not cut it.  

Please May all your actions be in alignment with saving, protecting and supporting the environment and nature for your grand- children and future generations.  What we do today determines what tomarrow will be. 
Sincerely