Opinion contributed by Vicki Gold, Mount Shasta It just gets “curiouser and curiouser,” Alice said. There are so many valid questions regarding the city’s decision to allow the appeal of the Freeze Project located above the headwaters at city park. The city violated the Brown Act by failing to make the planning commission meeting’s agenda freely available for all of the minimum-required 72 hours in advance of the public hearing, thus, depriving some citizens of their right to know about the application. Several citizens recently filed a Cure & Correct Letter. The planning commission appropriately denied the carwash portion of the IS/MND and requested the consultant and staff provide more information on the mini storage unit facility component. Well and good. Mr. Freeze later sent an email appealing the decision but stating no reasons for his appeal, nor paying fee required by city regulations. The city has always made other people pay the appeal fee at the time the appeal is submitted within 10 days of the planning commission’s decision. By not providing any basis for his appeal as required by ordinance, Freeze is depriving the city officials and the public with any ability to research and challenge the appeal. The appeal is premature as the commissioners have not completed their review of the project and environmental study. The city attorney advised the appeal should be allowed to proceed, bypassing the legitimate authority and expertise of the planning commission members who have studied the relevant documents. Who is the city attorney representing? As far as I know, no one is in favor of this project located in a delicate area highly visible from historic Spring Hill Trail and at the northern entry to our city. Aesthetics and community values matter. The neighbors and many locals all protested the development, particularly the car wash component because of its proximity to the Sacramento River headwaters and city park. Many speakers at the hearing commented they never have to wait to use the local car wash and questioned the viability of a second car wash. Most would boycott a car wash so proximal to the Headwaters. Many of us question Mr. Freeze’s statement that a former city planner gave him permission to remove trees and grade without a city permit. Freeze denied knowing the headwaters was there when he purchased the property. How could he fail to recognize the headwaters when he had been involved in major citation over the former Hi-Ridge Lumber Co. pollution in Yreka with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Board (NCRWQCB). Their recent email guides the public and our city representatives to information regarding his past history with water pollution issues. Although it was the former Hi-Ridge Lumber company’s pollution, Freeze was the owner at the time of the serious citation. “The Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) No. R1-20100061 that you attached in your October 17, 2019 email was issued by our Assistant Executive Officer on June 16, 2010. A substantial amount of documentation describing the investigation and remediation is publicly available on Geotracker, which you can access at https://geotracker. waterboards.ca.gov/. Type “Hi-Ridge” in the search box and click on the site when it appears. That will bring you to the Geotracker page for this site. To access the documents related to this site, including the documents related to the CAO, click on the “Regulatory Activities” tab.” These are questions that might lead the city to at a minimum require Freeze to comply with city regulations. Please attend the Monday, Oct. 28 city council hearing at 5:30 p.m. at City Park Upper Lodge. This project has so many flaws and creates potentially serious health and safety hazards for our community and for all downstream from the headwaters. Express your concerns and support those doing the heavy investigation and dedicated to protecting our wonderland. See this website for details: www.stopblight.weebly.com/
1 Comment
APPEAL FILEDUnhappy with the Planning Commission's denial of the car wash, Project applicant Jim Freeze filed an incomplete appeal by email to the city on Sept. 27, 2019. He did not submit the required $375 appeal fee, and gave no reasons for his appeal. Both are required by the city's appeal rules. PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT ATTEMPTED APPEALCitizens first submitted letters to the city demanding that the Planning Commission meeting be reheard because city officials had failed to provide even the minimum 72 hours required by the California Brown Act (open meeting act) in which to view the Commission's meeting agenda and new report. California considers such agency meetings to have no legal effect if the agency fails to inform the public adequately beforehand. People also protested Mr. Freeze not being required to pay the fee that everyone else who appeals must pay. Such fees cover costs of public notices, city employee time, and overhead expenses for appeal proceedings. Concerns were expressed also that by not informing the city why he appealed, Mr. Freeze was preventing City officials and the public from preparing in advance to respond to his arguments he intends to first announce at the hearing. city staff recommendation not to allow appealIn a report to the City Council, the staff is recommending that the appeal not be heard by the Council:
Recommended Council Action: City Staff respectfully recommend the City Council not hear the appeal on the basis that it was not filed following the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.32 of the Mt. Shasta Municipal Code. The Agenda for the Council meeting is available here: https://mtshastaca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/10.28.2019-Agenda-Packet.pdf FIRST PUBLIC HEARINGAt the September 17, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing, after listening to public comments and the project proponent, Jim Freeze, the Commission discussed various issues (summarized below.) The Commission then voted to deny the car wash portion of the application and to request additional information from the applicant and environmental consultants about environmental issues they did not believe had yet been adequately analyzed in the Project’s environmental study (the Revised IS-MND). Project Applicant Jim Freeze speaks to Commissioners SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGPUBLIC COMMENTS: Francis Mangels: Discussion on biological and hydrologic report in CEQA study. Opposed to additional car wash John Keyho: Concern for noise from the development. In favor of noise abatement options Hilary Stewart: Neighbor opposed to the proposal. Noise and light concerns Paul Lennon: Neighbor concerned with noise, traffic, snow storage, and landscaping. Wayne Huisman: Owner of other car wash. Discussion on difficulty to run the car wash in a profitable way. Not in favor of additional car wash. Roslyn McCoy: Discussion on Big Lakes Project and concern over adequate waster pressure for fire. Christina Casellic: Concerned over the loss of natural beauty near the trailhead. Not opposed to business but opposed to that location for it. Stephen Leyman: Neighborhood concerned with outdoor impacts of the development, specifically chemicals, odor, and hazardous waste storage. Mellissa Doyle: Neighbor concerned with traffic and lighting from the car wash. Believes car wash will add to the pollution of the area and the entrances of the development. Rick Demerest: Concerned over traffic, noise, and maintenance of the roadway. Question on who polices the mitigations Peggy Risch: Discussion on neighborhood compatibility. Concern over missing documents like grading, architectural, and lighting. Request for Environmental Impact Report. Vickie Gold: Believes that the uses are not compatible and the environmental document is not adequate. Opposes the application. Dale Forest: Believes that the environmental study is not adequate regarding lighting, stormwater, and noise. Believes there is no adequate water pressure. Concerned about greenhouse gases and lighting. Raven Stevens: Commenting on behalf of the Siskiyou Humane Society, concerned over traffic and sewer in the area. Betty Kreuger: Discussion on noise and the General Plan. Concerned over noise of the car wash project. Dan Nelson: Concern over the condition of the ground and previous development leaving Caltrans rubble. Opposes the mini-storage in the zoning. Stan Swanson: In favor of the development and feels that all of the information is adequate. Concern over the development of Mt. Shasta and the tough processes. Johanna Altofer: Concern about intangibles and the surrounding area. Discussion on timing of reviews. Discussion on future development and need for priorities. Applicant Jim Freeze: Discussion on project and address questions concerning the viability of the business, different uses for the property, and odor of the car wash not existing. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Commissioner Beck: Discussion on property history and compatibility of the use and the surrounding area. The Car Wash is not suitable for the area. Mini-storage is more compatible. Not in favor of a noise wall. Consider a compromise of striking the car wash and keep mini-storage. Not in favor of another car wash and the impact it could have on the surrounding area. Commissioner Saryon: Attempt to balance concerns. Not feasible to keep lot empty due to zoning. There is ministorage and car wash in C-2 but built before this area and this is a different situation. Development would impact the residences the most. Concern over the car wash portion concerning the noise, traffic, and surrounding uses. Not comfortable with approving the Car wash. Would support EIR to ensure concerns are addressed. Commissioner Higuera: Not in favor of the car wash. Undecided on mini-storage. Concern over lighting. In favor of denying car wash. Not decided on mini-storage. Commissioner McDowell: Not in favor of the car wash use. Not decided on mini-storage and needs more information. Commissioner Kirby: In favor of growth and business development. Believes that the car wash does impact people. Not opposed to either development. Not necessarily in favor. Commissioner Findling: Find that the two portions of the projects are different. Feels that noise mitigations is satisfactory. Traffic impacts and cumulative impacts needs to be considered. Inclined to the deny the car wash. Concerned about grading, storage of hazardous chemicals in storage, and lighting of the mini-storage area. Wants lighting, grading, dust during construction, and more architectural information. COMMISSION ACTION: Motion to request additional information from City Staff regarding grading, stormwater, additional architectural design information, lighting plan, dust control, storage of hazardous chemicals in mini-storage, and odor from car wash. COMMISSION ACTION: Motion to deny the car wash portion of the application. COMMISSION ACTION: Motion to table mini-storage portion of the application until additional information is received. |