Planning commission recommends rezoning, tentative map for Zinko Subdivision after hearings on trees, wetlands and road access

Planning commissioners on May 13 recommended the City Council approve a tentative subdivision map and rezoning for the Zinko Subdivision at 3150–3250 Jordan Lane, a 4.42-acre infill proposal for 16 single-family lots.

City planning staff presented the application and environmental review, and recommended adoption of a mitigated negative declaration and the draft conditions of approval. "So today I'll be speaking to you about Zinko Subdivision, tentative map application and rezoning," said Mr. Castro, city planning staff, during the presentation. Staff described access, site utilities and required mitigation measures for biological resources and tree removal penalties.

The application would change the zoning of one parcel from RS3 to RS3½ to better match the General Plan land-use designation and to permit the proposed density. Staff said the project would connect a stubbed water line, loop the local distribution system to improve water quality and maintenance, and install curb, gutter and sidewalk on Jordan Lane and Deodar Way. The proposed lot sizes range from about 7,000 to 16,000 square feet, with an average near 9,500 square feet, and the plan includes two detention basins that would be placed in a landscape maintenance district rather than owned by an HOA.

Why it matters: public concerns and staff conditions

The project resurfaced questions raised at a previous hearing about emergent wetlands and removal of trees without permits. David Ledger, a resident who attended both hearings, told the commission the biological surveys were done out of bloom season and said, “the first one was done in October when you can't identify any blooming plants.” Staff said a follow-up biological assessment identified wetlands on the site but concluded no special-status wetland species were likely; nonetheless, pre-construction protocol-level surveys for three plant species (Redding checkerbloom, Dubious P, and Henderson’s bentgrass) were required in the mitigation measures.

Staff also reported that 59 qualifying trees (greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height) had been removed and that the city had issued a $30,000 fine for the unpermitted removals. Planning staff said grading and building permits will not be issued for the project until that fine is resolved. Commissioners discussed enforcement procedures and were told by staff the fine follows the tree-management provisions of the Redding Municipal Code and can be appealed under land-use appeal procedures.

Traffic, roads and public works findings

Traffic counts for the 16-unit subdivision fell below the city's threshold for a formal traffic study. John Caldwell, the city’s transportation and traffic engineer, described local roadway dimensions and noted the curb-to-curb width on Deodar Way is about 22.5 feet; the city expects to post no-parking and to add gutter and a two-foot gutter pan to maintain a usable 10-foot travel lane. Staff told commissioners the public-works analysis found adequate travel width for two-way traffic and emergency response, and concluded the city could not justify requiring the developer to purchase additional land from an adjacent mobile-home park to widen the road given nexus and proportionality requirements.

Commissioner concerns and recommended edits to conditions

Commissioners asked for stronger language on materials and maintenance for block-post fencing and for the detention-basin fencing on Parcel 10 to be included explicitly in the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) so the basin and its gate are maintained. One commissioner moved that the commission forward a recommendation to city council to approve the map and rezoning, adopt the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program, and approve the tentative map subject to staff conditions amended to require durable materials for block-post fencing and to place all perimeter fencing for the Parcel 10 detention basin into the LMD, with the gate designated an LMD maintenance item. The motion was seconded and the commission voted to forward the recommendation to council. Chair records show one member voted against the motion; commissioners did not identify the opposing member on the record.

What remains unresolved

• Enforcement and timing: staff confirmed the $30,000 administrative fine has been issued in the form of notices of violation and that, if unpaid and unappealed, ministerial permits (grading or building) will be withheld. Staff said if the fine is not resolved the matter could be referred to code enforcement for administrative citation procedures. • Biological survey timing: staff described mitigation that requires in-season (bloom-period) surveys if surveys indicate the potential for special-status plants, and standard pre-construction nesting-bird checks. • Road improvements: the city’s position is that requiring the developer to acquire land from the mobile home park to widen Deodar Way is not justified on nexus/proportionality grounds for a 16-lot subdivision.

Next steps and council review

Because rezoning is required to bring one parcel into conformance with the General Plan, the proposal must be approved by the City Council; the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation with the amendments noted above. Staff will prepare the package for council consideration and continue to coordinate with public-works, code enforcement and biological consultants as the project advances.

Votes at a glance: Zinko Subdivision recommendation

Motion: Forward a recommendation to City Council to determine that the necessary findings for approval are in evidence; adopt the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program; and approve tentative subdivision map S‑2024‑416 and rezoning application RZ‑2024‑156 (Zinko Subdivision), subject to draft conditions of approval as amended (durable block-post fencing; include Parcel 10 detention-basin fencing and gate in the LMD).

Mover: Commissioner Godard Second: Second not named on record Outcome: Recommendation forwarded to City Council (motion passed; 6 yes, 1 no).