Photo: Shasta County Tierra Robles Development draft partial EIR cover.
Tierra Robles may mean “Land of Oaks” in Spanish. But inside the Shasta County Board of Supervisors chambers Thursday, Tierra Robles translated into a red-letter day when two-years’ of pandemic-era rancor and political dissent were set aside long enough for supervisors to find common ground with regard to the proposed Tierra Robles “planned development”.
The board chambers were packed, literally standing room only. A sea of red shirts, worn in protest by many audience members who were part of one of the anti-Tierra Robles groups.
By the special meeting’s conclusion, the supervisors unanimously rejected the controversial Tierra Robles project, originally slated for development approximately 5 miles east of Redding.
Had supervisors approved the project, it would have featured 166 upscale homes on 715.4 rural acres on the Chatham Ranch property, located between the unincorporated communities of Bella Vista and Palo Cedro.
The supervisors’ 5-0 vote against Tierra Robles was a victory for citizens who’d been unrelenting in their opposition of the development for 10 years, and who’d joined forces with hundreds of their neighbors to fight the project.
Likewise, the unanimous vote dealt a stinging defeat for Beverly Hills’ developer Robert Geringer of Shasta Red LLC, who’d purchased the property more than 17 years ago. Geringer was clearly outnumbered and in hostile territory Thursday. Audience members laughed aloud when Geringer claimed that the project would not negatively impact neighbors’ water availability or threaten Bella Vista Water District’s supply. He added that Tierra Robles would take more than a decade for full build-out.
He claimed that the project would actually enhance the area’s natural beauty, and when finished, the Tierra Robles would be the best, most environmentally sensitive development possible. What’s more, said the developer, the addition of Tierra Robles to the area would make rural neighborhoods even more safe, because of such attributes as fire hydrants. Those statements resulted in yet more audience laughter.
Tierra Robles’ fate fell into the supervisors’ laps Thursday after the Shasta County Planning Commission voted unanimously on April 6 in favor of the Tierra Robles development, thus kicking the decision-making can down the road for the supervisors’ final say-so.
Consultants and staff members took turns speaking about the Tierra Robles project before the Shasta County Board of Supervisors special meeting Thursday.
Thursday, after county staff and a host of consultants and experts spent the meeting’s first few hours touting Tierra Robles as a wonderful idea, the residents had their chance to explain why they rejected Tierra Robles.
When District 5 Supervisor Chair Les Baugh invited speakers in favor of Tierra Robles to come forward, there was silence. Crickets.
It was notable that not a single citizen unrelated to the business side of the project stood up in favor of it, while nearly two dozen people spoke against the development, as well as letters and emails sent to supervisors, and letters read aloud during the public comment period by those representing hundreds of others who could not attend the meeting.
Person after person stood at the lectern and described potential danger, disaster and even death, should the supervisors approve the Tierra Robles development.
Some anti-Tierra Robles citizens questioned the credibility of the county’s draft Environmental Impact report. Others accused the EIR of being being flawed at least, and fraught with errors, omissions, and even deception at most.
They said many Tierra Robles details flew in the face of Shasta County’s own general plan, and that the Tierra Robles project violated FEMA standards. Other speakers criticized staff and pro-Tierra Robles experts for downplaying concerns about everything from water availability and traffic issues to fire danger and emergency-evacuation times. Yet others talked about everything from dry wells, collapsed aquifers and dry pastures to the current bumper-to-bumper traffic during peak school times. They said that Tierra Robles would only exacerbate these issues.
One speaker said that to proceed with the Tierra Robles Planned Development project would be to gamble with people’s lives as they tried unsuccessfully to flee fires on roads ill-equipped to handle the additional traffic produced by a glut of Tierra Robles’ residents. They spoke of catastrophic gridlock as too many vehicles attempted to navigate Boyle Road in particular, described by one man as “the most poorly designed road in Shasta County”.
He added, “Even if you had a billion dollars, you still couldn’t fix Boyle Road.”
Many speakers referred to some of the North State’s most unforgettable fires, from the Jones Fire and Carr Fire to the Camp Fire. Several speakers recalled the city of Paradise as a cautionary tale. They scoffed at the developer’s claim that total community evacuation from a wildfire would take approximately three hours and 15 minutes, moving about 3 miles per hour, and was acceptable.
One man said that people would die trying to outrun a wildfire, a statement repeated by a few speakers.
“Let’s not be another Paradise,” implored one man.
One woman turned toward the pro-Tierra Robles consultants and yelled, “What’s wrong with you? You can’t outrun a fire!”
One man asked why — when the developer was given the opportunity five years ago to make changes suggested by Tierra Robles’ opponents — why the developer refused to make those changes. Furthermore, he accused the developer of being deceptive about water availability. He rhetorically asked that if the developer was being deceptive about water, then what were the other possible points of deception?
One woman insisted that she’s not anti-growth, but a rather, a realist who believes the Tierra Robles project was not a good fit for the proposed location.
The supervisors speak
At last, all the speeches and presentations were over. It was the supervisors’ turns to discuss Tierra Robles, and take the matter to a vote.
For the second time in the evening, District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones mentioned a personal reason for his opposition to Tierra Robles. In a word: guns. It seems one portion of the Tierra Robles open-space area flanks the Redding Gun Club, of which Jones is a past president. In response to the developer’s solution to build a wall between the gun club and the Tierra Robles development’s open space, Jones was adamant. “So you know, that doesn’t work,” he said. “Once the new owner comes in and the shooting starts, the complaining begins.”
For this topic, Jones spoke not as a supervisor, but as a Redding Gun Club member. He also bragged a bit about being a top shooter, and a Nevada state shooting champion at a gun club that no longer exists. Jones said that gun clubs always butt heads with citizens who live nearby, and the gun clubs always lose.
“If this project moves forward, the range will ultimately shut down,” Jones said. “There’s no question.”
In a rather rich moment, Jones said that aside from the gun-range issue, and fire dangers and potential water shortages, it was imperative that the supervisors “listen to the people”.
“To me, it’s pretty clear that this project is not wanted in this area.”
Interesting choice of words from the supervisor who ignored hundreds of citizens’ pleas over many months with pleas to not fire Shasta County Health Officer Karen Ramstrom.
With that, Jones made the motion to deny the Tierra Robles project and its related proposed zoning amendments.
District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman — who referred to the developer, consultants and public speakers as “you guys” — rushed to second Jones’ motion.
District 1 Supervisor Joe Chimenti thanked all parties for their participation, and for doing so in such a civilized manner – something that’s been rare during the last two years’ of supervisor meetings. He began his statement by disagreeing with those who accused the pro-Tierra Robles parties of deception. He said he supported the Planning Commission, and said that what happened Thursday was an example of how the checks-and-balances system is supposed to work.
Chimenti said that he’s pro-building, but his challenge with the Tierra Robles decision was balancing the desire for growth and impact fees, while considering the ever-increasing prevalence of wildfires.
“I have some concerns about escape routes,” he said, adding that it’s statistically impossible to put a timeline on how long it takes panicked people to evacuate. Plus, Chimenti said, add to the mix a vehicle that overturns and blocks the road as the driver flees.
“We don’t know what Mother Nature is going to do,” Chimenti said. He noted that supervisors have a responsibility to the future, but not at the expense of today.
“So today, I’m going to vote no on this project.”
Then came Supervisor Garman’s turn to speak, which, as is often the case, left some audience members with flummoxed facial expressions.
“I’m gonna kinda lay out why I voted that way … but while I vote the way I will, some of the issues I have is I’m not sure with the history of that area, we know the fires run north and south there, so I’m baffled to why you developed and drew up the subdivision with north and south exits,” Garman said. “This should have been an east and west — and I feel like it would be a little safer for people.”
Garman next offered a painstaking justification for his vote … sort of. He noted that the development couldn’t proceed unless “the water was there” and added, “Obviously, I get calls — you could have my phone for four or fives days — from dry wells.”
That’s why, Garman said, although water’s an issue today, the developer couldn’t build until the water was approved.
“So that part doesn’t scare me so much as approving.”
He agreed with Jones (predictably) about the importance of considering the shooting-range issue, but said that something else that struck him was when a “gal with horses said” something that “caught his ear”: that the Tierra Robles residents couldn’t have large farm animals, which didn’t seem fair.
Garman presented a convoluted hypothetical situation: What if a family with kids moved in and the kids wanted to participate in 4-H, but their home wasn’t zoned for that kind of rural living?
“They wouldn’t be allowed to do it but everybody around them can,” Garman said. “So I just feel like you are taking this little island and making it its own little thing. I’d like to see it stay the same as the rest of the area.”
Huh? What? Cue head-spinning.
Next came Supervisor Rickert’s comments. Rickert said, as someone who served on the State Board of Forestry and Fire Prevention for many years, she’s highly sensitive to fire issues. She’s seen firsthand how fire has decimated communities up and down the state.
“I think evacuation is a true, serious issue in this particular community,” Rickert said. “A lot of the comments were about evacuations, and I think they’re very valid.”
Finally, Rickert, who’s a rancher, said she believed that the Tierra Robles project is incompatible with “who Palo Cedro is”.
She said that in addition to fire danger, the issue of water scarcity was immense; something about which she’s especially aware because of a lifetime of agricultural work in the family business. She’s aware of how someone can drill a well on their property, and yet down the road their neighbors are impacted with a water reduction.
“Water is a huge issue in Shasta County,” Rickert said. “And we don’t know how long our weather conditions are going to remain like this. This could go on for another five or 10 years.”
Rickert also expressed concerns about state control and state over-reach, and said she’s worried about the state “poaching” Shasta County water rights. Her comments about there being no guarantees about water availability drew spontaneous applause from the audience.
She went on to point out the correlation between water and food, and said she knows rice farmers who aren’t growing rice this year. Those examples explain why water is one of Rickert’s primary concerns. Beyond that, Rickert said there’s another consideration that is just as important.
“Lastly, this is in the district I represent,” she said. These are the people who elected me to speak for them. And so I support their opposition to this proposal, and I will vote no on this project.”
Chair Baugh was last to speak. As he put it, he “cut right to the chase” with his explanation of his vote.
“I don’t intend to support this project either,” he said. “So what you’re hearing is the unanimous denial of the applicant’s presentation, and there will be no development as presented.”
Baugh said that the board’s position did not reflect missteps by the Planning Commission or board staff. He, like Chimenti, did not believe there was any intentional deception at play. In fact, Baugh said he believed the Tierra Robles project was one of the finest development proposals he’s seen, which is why Baugh said that had the project come before him 10 years ago, he would have voted for it. Even so, he said that his decision mostly came down to water, and whether it was available or not.
“I saw no viable promise for water on this project, now or in the future,” Baugh said.
Finally, came the vote. The first part of the vote denied certifying Tierra Roble’s final EIR. Part 2 was to disapprove the zone amendment.
There was a brief moment of confusion during the vote roll call, when Baugh mistakenly jumped the gun and answered for Supervisor Rickert with a “yes” vote when Rickert’s name was read. A second try cleared things up for the official 5-0 vote.
Power to the people
Acronyms spelled out citizen groups organized by hundreds of community members united in the cause to fight Tierra Robles, such as Shasta PATROL (Protect Against Tierra Robles Overdeveloped Lands (PATROL) and BURN (Boyle Unifying Responsible Neighbors)
Bob Grosch is a licensed therapist and dedicated BURN member. BURN is an organization created by and for citizens who formed a united front against Tierra Robles.
Grosch has been a frequent spokesperson against the Tierra Robles planned development. For Grosch, his concerns are two-fold: The loss of life and property, but also the mental trauma many fire survivors suffer in a fire’s aftermath.
Grosch spoke of the increase in wildland fires, and the destruction they leave in their wake.
“This plan will kill,” Grosch said. “It’s an invitation to fire. It’s designed for disaster.”
One of the day’s final citizens to speak during the public comment period was a woman who spoke directly to the Beverly Hills developer.
“How dare you come up to Shasta County from Southern California and think we’re a bunch of backward hicks who won’t care,” she said.
Obviously, that woman did care. So did scores of other Shasta County people who hung in there for 10 years in opposition to Tierra Robles.
In the end, the county spoke, the supervisors listened, Tierra Robles lost, and the people won.
###
If you appreciate journalist Doni Chamberlain’s reporting and commentary, consider a contribution to A News Cafe. Thank you!
