1. Site grading without water pollution prevention plan or permit
In 2016 the developer hired workmen to unlawfully cut down mature trees and to illegally grade the project site without applying for the required permits. One such permit required before site grading should have been sought from the regional water quality board called a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan permit. When notified by neighbors, city officials noted the developer had illegally bulldozed the project site without those permits.
Photos of developer's illegal tree cutting and site grading
This project site is immediately uphill across the street from the City Park with it's headwaters from which people regularly obtain drinking water. Yet the developer had not installed temporary stormwater pollution prevention controls against erosion which trap, infiltrate, or settle out mobilized sediments, or timely seeding, mulching, and sodding, that prevent soil from becoming dislodged into the nearby creek. Those control methods are required had he applied for a permit. These barriers and spill containment supplies could have captured and retained sediments and mud that could have washed off those several acres into the Big Springs Creek watershed that supplies the Mt. Shasta Fish Hatchery with its otherwise pure water.
2. ILLEGAL TREE CUTTING of City-owned trees and others without permits:
The city of Mount Shasta cited the developer for illegally cutting trees on his property and on the city's public right of way along North Mount Shasta Boulevard. One reason such tree cutting is unlawful is that developers are not allowed by CEQA to divide their projects into separate smaller pieces as a tactic to avoid full environmental review. But this has actually occurred here, possibly because the developer had argued his project was exempt from California's environmental laws. As evidence of such "piece-mealed" impact analysis, the revised IS-MND fails to evaluate the loss of those mature trees when evaluating the project's environmental impacts. Tree loss affects biological habitats, greenhouse gas sequestration, aesthetic views, and other issues. As the result, the IS-MND fails to provide adequate environmental mitigations to compensate for such tree losses.
Remnants of trees after developer's cutting
Comparison of views from North Mount Shasta Boulevard to project site with trees having been cut
Photo from 2016 showing unpermitted tree removal on project site
Red circles on aerial photo above show where some mature trees were cut by developer
without permission from City as his first efforts to develop this project.
without permission from City as his first efforts to develop this project.
3. DEVELOPER tried to CLAIM HIS PROJECT WAS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
As documented with email correspondence shown on the ZONING CONFLICT page, the developer initially attempted to invoke an exemption under CEQA Guidelines 15332 for "urban" infill projects. But that exemption only applies in cities with more than 50,000 people that are called 'urbanized areas.' He did not inform our city officials that such an exemption does not apply to our small city with less than 4,000 people. Moreover, it would only apply if the project site is surrounded by urban uses, but not as in this case adjacent to a city park on one side and an undeveloped steep hill on another side. That exemption also only applies if the project is consistent with the city's zoning, general plan and other regulations, which is not relevant here. This project is clearly not consistent because of impermissible warehousing and its proposed metal buildings. This exemption also does not apply because the project would result in significant effects relating to traffic, air quality, water quality and noise levels in its neighborhood.
City officials resisted his false arguments about being exempt and insisted that an environmental study be conducted. They also thankfully objected to his unlawful attempts to separate the warehouse portion from the car wash portion of the project as a deceptive tactic to evade proper analysis of the whole of the development.
For that email correspondence, see discussion on the ZONING conflict page.
City officials resisted his false arguments about being exempt and insisted that an environmental study be conducted. They also thankfully objected to his unlawful attempts to separate the warehouse portion from the car wash portion of the project as a deceptive tactic to evade proper analysis of the whole of the development.
For that email correspondence, see discussion on the ZONING conflict page.
NEXT: