In two weeks, the Shasta County Planning Commission will make a decision that some say will set the tone and direction for the future of commercial development in the county. If they recommend the proposed Shasta Regional Auto Mall be built, both the land use designations and zoning for about 101 of the 107 acres in the project area will eventually be changed from agricultural to commercial. There’s concern that this might set a precedent for commercial sprawl at the irreversible cost of soil loss.

Nestled in the hills a mere three miles southwest of the proposed auto mall is the Happy Valley Farm Trail. A grass-roots organization of 36 farms, ranches and agricultural businesses, the Trail is quietly, almost unnoticed, becoming a valuable commodity for the county. Small farms are growing in number, offering freshness and quality of product you just can’t get at the supermarket. But are they an endangered species?

Happy Valley itself is an area that the county’s general plan calls a “rural community center.” This means the area has a “lower population density” and is “in close proximity to the natural environment.” People in the area primarily live there to enjoy exactly those features.

The farm trail is facing some new waves of developments lapping on its eastern boundary and further. From Olinda Road to Happy Valley Road to Highway 273, the North Fork Ranch land development will occupy 3,000 acres adjacent to the farm trails area. An equestrian center, trails and houses highlight this project. Further east, could lie the auto mall.

Do the farmers, ranchers and business people of the farm trail have concerns about these two sizeable developments, bumping right up against the farm trail area? Perhaps it is seen as a boon, bringing more customers to their doorstep. The North Fork development could even be seen as a buffer or transitional zone to the commercial development of the auto mall.

The farm trail reflects two growing trends: consumers want to buy locally-grown, quality products and they want to visit the farms and ranches to learn, buy and be entertained, a phenomenon known as “agri-tourism.” According to the website of UC Davis’ Small Farm Program, agri-tourism is “a commercial enterprise at a working farm, ranch, or agricultural plant conducted for the enjoyment of visitors that generates supplemental income for the owner.” This includes things like horseback riding, school tours, U-pick operations and wagon rides. The farm trail has hung its shingle out, offering an array of goodies for tourists. Hawes Farms, on the east side of I-5 is already on this bandwagon with its corn maze and October festivities.

It’s too soon to tell if small farms in the area will gain or lose from the impending commercial and residential development. But the answer is far from clear. For example, one of the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided according to the auto mall EIR is the “cumulative conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use.” Paving a few more acres of farmland that happen to be next to an interstate freeway appears to be seen as a necessary price to pay for development.

This has already happened extensively around the state of California and will probably continue in the North State. A 107-acre parking lot along a freeway is nothing strange or unusual. Freeways are conduits of commerce, natural places to build next to. To think that this can be stopped altogether in Shasta County is just unrealistic. The question is how much development does the county want?

With our alluvial gravel, farm and grazing land, waterways and forests, Shasta County is blessed with geological and biological wealth. It would be good to strike a forward-looking balance between the interests of development and agriculture. When the Planning Commission meets next week, we’ll see how they weigh in on the matter of soil versus asphalt.