Auto mall wrecked in Supervisors’ chambers

Photo by Michael Woodward, Reporter

CAN’T PLEASE THEM ALL - At the end of a seven hour Supervisors’ meeting March 27, the board’s decision against the auto mall evoked a range of reaction. Hearing the news are Francie Parr (right), Jeen Wopat (left) and Frank Strazzarino (front), President/CEO of the Redding Chamber of Commerce.

After a seven-hour meeting, the Board of Supervisors rejected the auto mall proposal on March 27 by a 3-2 vote. Supervisor Hawes, who initially motioned to approve the auto mall, followed the decision with another motion for a smaller version of the auto mall project. It also fell by the same 3-2 margin.

“It’s a travesty when one person can keep so much from so many,” said project applicant Jim Maxwell about his slim margin of loss.

The Board voted on the auto mall project as follows:

• No — David Kehoe, District 1

“N.I.M.B.Y. concerns are valid concerns. . . I think incremental changes to the general plan are ambiguous.”

• No — Mark Cibula, District 2

“If you plan right, then ultimately you’ll reap more economic benefits, as well as preserve your quality of life.”

• Yes — Glen Hawes, District 3

“It’s hard to farm along a freeway; there’s dust, pesticides . . . It’s actually an eyesore compared to what Jim Maxwell proposed.

• Yes — Linda Hartman, District 4

“In order to preserve quality of life, we do need some of this development.”

• No — Les Baugh, District 5

“What are we doing with Churn Creek Bottom? Are we turning it into a commercial center like Hilltop Drive or preserving a way of life? The EIR did not answer traffic questions. There were several fees mentioned but no facts and figures. . . . I’m here to evaluate hard data.”

Baugh’s comment about traffic data related to a letter from CALTRANS, which had just recently arrived. The letter recommended a per car sales fee of $20 to mitigate for increased traffic counts. Baugh said that this letter should have been in the EIR and that Supervisors shouldn’t have to trust a presenter for the data.

“I don’t understand how it could have been turned down because of quality of life,” Maxwell said. “What happened to the need for an animal shelter, jail and mental health services? Those things are what I call quality of life.”

The decision also marks a victory for the Churn Creek Bottom Homeowners and Friends Association, which opposed the project from the outset. The association, along with Citizens for Smart Growth, have “decided to pull the initiative off the table,” said Chris Carmona.

The initiative would have presented Shasta County voters with the choice to freeze further conversion of land to commercial designation in Churn Creek Bottom.

“Supervisor Kehoe indicated in his closing comments that we should pursue a specific plan,” Carmona said. “The auto mall forced us to prepare an initiative.”

Maxwell said that the six acres on the corner that he does own could provide a space for strip retail.

Days after the Board’s decision, Anderson City officials voiced interest in luring Maxwell’s auto mall endeavors within the city limits. The Anderson locations are in-fill, not sprawl, meaning they are undeveloped areas surrounded by existing development.

“They missed an opportunity,” Mayor Keith Webster said.

“We have a couple of in-fill sites that could be used for that purpose, and they’d be welcome here,” said Scott Morgan, Anderson City Manager.

Anderson City Councilman Phil Burnett also noted that the acreage is “already zoned commercial in our general plan.”

Two proposed locations for such a development involve I-5 visibility. They include the 60-acre plot south of the Kenworth development, which is just south of Dan Gamel’s RV Center on Auto Mall Dr, and the area behind the Gateway Shopping Center in Anderson.