August 28, 2018

Dear Shasta County Board of Supervisors, 

We have reviewed the General Plan 2014-2019 "Draft Housing Element” and write to express concerns with, and inform you of our opposition to, the proposed changes to the General Plan and Zoning Plan with respect to it’s impacts on Palo Cedro, CA. 

The proposed re-zoning appears to show up to 8 acres on Gilbert Drive being re-zoned to accommodate up to 25 dwellings per acre of very low income housing (=200 dwellings). The General Plan estimates 2.7 persons per household, which would result in a potential population increase of 540 people. According to the 2010 census, Palo Cedro had 1269 residents. If we assume the population is now 1500 residents, this would potentially be an over 30% population increase.

 Here are our questions and concerns upon initial review:

1. Where will this new population of residents work? Palo Cedro has limited job opportunities.

2. How will they get to work given the lack of public transportation? If they have cars, where will they park them?

3. How will this impact traffic, particularly at Junction School where the "Safe Routes to School" bond is currently working to REDUCE Deschutes to single lanes to slow down cars in front of the school? How about at the HW 44 intersections that are currently controlled by stop signs and uncontrolled left hand turn lanes into oncoming traffic?

4. Who will build the sidewalks throughout town to allow pedestrians to get to the park, the stores, and schools?

5. How will the urban wild-fire interface be protected given that Palo Cedro is in High/Very High Fire Severity Zone (the highest categories) and 90% of wild land fires are caused by humans, per the General Plan?

6. What did Shasta County Sheriff say when consulted about this proposal, considering the following text from the General Plan: "The future growth of Shasta County will undoubtedly require expansion of the Sheriff’s Office to adequately serve the needs of new residents of unincorporated areas… Coordination between the Sheriff’s Office and Planning Division will be useful in identifying future service needs and areas where development could occur..."

7. The DRAFT General Plan modifications threaten an important aspect of the development philosophy, which is to maintain our "quality of life". Specifically, this quote from the General Plan hits home: "...economic development which contributes to increased traffic and air quality impacts, is not located within planned community centers, or does not promote efficient use of land and public services may result in a development pattern which could lessen the quality of life...Taking a comprehensive view of all relevant Plan policies, the result must further the intent of these policies in a practical, workable, and sound manner. Unusual, awkward, and strained solutions are not intended by the General Plan and should be avoided." 4.0.02

8. The General Plan describes our area, referred to as the South Central Region, in the following manner:

"Within 5-8 miles to the east and west of this [I-5/Sacramento River] corridor, the development pattern is characterized by rural communities served by community water and/or sewer districts. On either side of the Sacramento River Valley, development in the upland areas takes the form of agriculture, grazing, and timber operations, with small rural community centers and individual homesites dispersed throughout. Many of these communities have their origins in the early settlement of Shasta County." This re-zoning effort feels like a knee-jerk reaction to a legal threat, and will fundamentally alter the development pattern for our community. This rushed and short-sighted proposal conflicts with General Plan Implementation Objective I-5, which is "Development of a planning process that resists short-term pressures exerted by narrow interests to modify the General Plan, but is capable of thoughtfully responding to significantly changed conditions or shifts in community values."

The above questions and concerns demonstrate that our Planning Commission has not done diligence to protect our General Plan and the values of this community. We are asking for a NO VOTE on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Plan Amendments.

I am writing to remind you that the County has the right to say no. "Low and Moderate Income Housing Government Code Section 65589.5(d): states that a city or county may disapprove a low or moderate-income housing project if the jurisdiction finds that the development is inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation, as specified in any element of the plan.” High density, low income housing developments should be reserved for urban infill projects in areas with existing services capable of providing support to the citizens served by those who are in need.

The lack of outreach to our community in the early stages of these proposed changes is disappointing. I expect you will hear more from our community now that the word on these proposed changes has gotten out. I hope you will listen to our concerns, and make the right decision for the rural communities you represent.

Respectfully,

Community of Palo Cedro