Shasta County supervisors say housing targets lag; approve staff follow-up and request general‑plan proposal

Supervisor Plummer told the Board of Supervisors on March 25 that the county is not on track to meet state Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets for the current planning cycle and urged further action. “We do not appear to be on track to hit our targets with the state,” Supervisor Plummer said during discussion on the county’s housing element annual progress report.

The county’s planning staff confirmed the shortfall applies to the unincorporated area only and that recent building-permit activity has declined from 2022 levels. Resource Management staff said the county has a surplus of single‑family moderate‑income units but needs more multi‑family and extremely low‑income units to meet RHNA requirements. Public staff presentations cited several causes including slow rebuilds in fire‑affected areas, rising construction costs, high interest rates and difficulties obtaining fire insurance in wildland‑urban interface areas.

Adam Fiesler of Resource Management noted that some larger projects, like the Boerne Commons development, account for steep projected increases in the county’s plan but added that those projects alone will not close the gap. “We would need some major catch ups, quite a few Boerne Commons‑type projects,” Fiesler said, describing where the staff report shows the most significant unit additions.

Supervisors discussed policy tools to accelerate housing: updating accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules to conform with the state ADU handbook, reducing certain setback and parking requirements that limit density, and rezoning targeted parcels—particularly near sewer and water infrastructure—to allow multifamily development. Staff said ADU law is changing frequently and that an updated county ADU ordinance will be required to align with state guidance.

Board members also reviewed post‑fire rebuild data. Planning staff reported that of roughly 817 dwelling units lost in the Carr Fire and other incidents, about 386 had been rebuilt—below 50%—and many burned lots remain vacant or have become code‑enforcement cases. Supervisors said this complicates efforts to meet RHNA targets because replacement housing has not progressed as quickly as anticipated.

Supervisor Plummer moved to approve item C20 and to direct staff to prepare a proposal to update the county’s general plan; the motion was seconded and carried 5‑0. The motion asks staff to return with scope and cost information for a general‑plan update so the board can consider next steps in a future meeting. The board noted that a comprehensive general‑plan update would be multi‑year and likely require significant staff time or outside contracting to complete.

Supervisor Long, who sponsored a related motion earlier in the meeting, said he would like the update process to include measurable department goals so future budget decisions can be tied to clear priorities. “If we want something that’s going to be an enduring document that is going to guide the direction of the board for the next 4 to 5 years, that’s very significant,” Long said.

The board and staff also discussed housing funding and development readiness: many projects that could increase multifamily capacity require a mix of grants, tax incentives and local approvals, and several supervisors urged streamlining permitting to reduce barriers for developers. For now, staff will return with a general‑plan proposal and cost estimate for the board’s consideration.