BETTY J.

KREEGER
1020 Kingston Road, Apt. 3-D
Mt. Shasta, CA 96067
bjkreeger@att.net
(530) 926-3984

July 11, 2020

Mr. Kirk Skierski,

Deputy Director of Planning Department
Siskiyou County
806 South Main Street
Yreka, CA 96097

Via Email: planning@co.siskiyou.ca.us

Public Comment Re. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for

Southern Oregon Ready Mix Project

Dear Mr. Skierski:

A couple of days ago I was alerted to Southern Oregon Ready Mix’s attempt to have 33.5 acres
rezoned for industrial use so it can proceed with its planned project which lies just outside the
city limits of the City of Mount Shasta and within the sphere of influence of the City. There are
a number of issues with this IS/MND which I enumerate below for your consideration.

I. REZONING CONFLICTS WITH THE VOLCANIC LEGACY SCENIC BYWAY

ALL AMERICAN ROAD (VLSB) DESIGNATION

Most importantly this stretch of the highway long ago was designated as a scenic byway.
Southern Oregon Ready Mix claim that it isn’t one doesn’t change the facts. This attempt to
rezone this property is nothing more than a blatant attempt to get around this long-standing
designation.

Rezoning to industrial would violate state law in a way that would be inconsistent with the
General Plan which has not changed. See California Streets and Highway Code Section 263.3
which states:

“The state scenic highway system shall also include:…(f) Route 89 near Mt. Shasta
to Route 97 near Weed”.
Mr. Kirk Skierski,
Re: Public Comment: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Southern Oregon Ready Mix Project
July 11, 2020
Page 3 of 7

Forty-five years ago on February 11, 1975 Siskiyou County’s Scenic Highway Element General Plan
was approved and defines the County’s Scenic Highways. In relevant part on page 8 it states:

A. “A. State Scenic Highway Master Plan Designated Routes in Siskiyou County
1. Scenic Freeways
a. Interstate 5 from the Oregon line to its intersection with State
Route 3 in Yreka, and from its confluence with Highway 97 in Weed
to its confluence with Highway 89 south of Mt. Shasta.”

The General Plan goes to great lengths to describe the importance of these Scenic Byway
designations and the reasons for protection of these scenic views. Over time nothing has
diminished the importance. If anything, the importance is magnified because it is these views,
pristine air and water quality that attract millions of visitors. Under “Purpose” on page 2 the
General Plan states:

“The Scenic Route Element is intended to provide for the preservation of scenic
highways for the enjoyment of the general public….It strives to create a favorable
public image that will encourage economic development and tourism within the
county, thereby protecting property values in the areas through which the
highway passes. This is designed to spur community pride and contribute to the
well being (sic) and enjoyment that residents of Siskiyou County may take in their
property.”

Three houses and a monastery are located near this proposed site and deserve the
protection they assumed through this General Plan when choosing those locations.

On page 5, under “Definitions” and “Elements of Scenic Routes” it describes Scenic

Corridors. The importance of these corridors are so great that state of local jurisdictions
included a provision that they may acquire them to maintain that integrity.

“Scenic Corridors are areas that extend beyond the Scenic Route right-of-way, to
which development controls should be applied for purposes of preserving and
enhancing nearby views of maintaining unobstructed distant views along the
scenic routes. These values may be of such significance to warrant acquisition by
state or local jurisdictions. The Scenic Corridor should also include slope and utility
easements as well….Within these corridors controls should be developed to
restrict unsightly use of the land, control height of the structures…..”
Mr. Kirk Skierski,
Re: Public Comment: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Southern Oregon Ready Mix Project
July 11, 2020
Page 4 of 7

On page 7, it identifies “objectives”. Two important objectives are:

“1. To establish a continuous system of routes…that will increase the

enjoyment of, and opportunities for, recreational and cultural pursuits and
tourism by providing for pleasurable scenic drives and scenic routes to all
major recreational areas throughout the county.

“4. To preserve for all travelers the outstanding characteristics of Siskiyou

County primarily clean air and magnificent scenery, so that it may remain so,
providing incentives for tourism and to stabilize and increase property
values….”

What could be more magnificent than the unencumbered views of majestic Mt. Shasta and Black
Butte with trees and foliage as a backdrop? What is more important to our health than clean air
that could be denied if this plant is allowed?

The status of Interstate 5 at this location as a Scenic Highway is a function of the unusually
attractive scenery. The lack of visible industry along interstate 5 between highway 89 and
highway 97 allowed the state to designate this highway section as a scenic highway. If however
unsightly development occurs along this highway here, Caltrans could get the state to revoke the
scenic highway status. That would open the door to more unsightly development. Clearly this is
not what was intended by the State of California, nor of and Siskiyou County.

It is exceedingly difficult to attain this status, as I am sure you already know. One condition is
that the road or highway must have one-of-a-kind features and be considered a “destination
unto itself.” Nothing says one-of-a-kind more than the Mt. Shasta volcanic group.

CEQA requires Siskiyou County to correctly assess the aesthetic impacts this Project may create.
The Project’s IS/MND fails to do that.

Siskiyou County’s Element General Plan goes on to identify the “Principles” it employed to keep
this area pristine. Pages 10-11

“The scenic route system shall be designed to provide attractive and efficient
links between recreational and cultural centers, while providing a variety of
experiences and views giving uninterrupted movement of pleasure driving.”

“Scenic routes should be designed to minimize cuts and files, leaving grade as
near natural as possible.” This has already been destroyed.
Mr. Kirk Skierski,
Re: Public Comment: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Southern Oregon Ready Mix Project
July 11, 2020
Page 5 of 7

“Provide for normal use of the land and protect against unsightly features.” Like a 33.5
acre pavement recycling plant within plain view of the highway.

“Limit highway business and commercial development to necessary facilities to

accommodate the traveling public.”

Southern Oregon Ready Mix has, without approval, and therefore illegally graded and removed
a substantial amount of vegetation. This is most presumptive! Have Mr. Shea been given the
impression this IS/MND will be approved without objection? I certainly hope not. While this
IS/MND is being considered the County should issue a cease & desist order to Southern Oregon
Ready Mix so no further degradation shall take place. This illegal activity is reminiscent of their
illegal activities at Gazelle for a number of years. I address this below.

If this project is allowed to continue it should at the very least be required to abide by the above
and the following from the County’s General Plan, page 10 “Grading Ordinance”. If the project is
not approved Southern Oregon Ready Mix must be required at a minimum to restore the
landscape to the extent possible to the original status prior to their degradation of it.

“Surveillance of land cut and fill operations should be maintained and requirements for
the replanting or landscaping of new slopes should be required.” (Siskiyou County General
Plan, p. 16 “Grading Ordinance”

The IS/MND provides for no protective revegetation measures, a measure which must be
included should this go forward – not just rely on some verbal good intentions by J. F. Shea.

The fact that Southern Oregon Ready Mix has boldly claimed that this area of Interstate 5 does
not fall within the Scenic Byway designation begs the question of just how far it will go to push
through this faulty IS/MND. This alone should be reason to deny the IS/MND and require an EIR.

II. PROVISIONS SHOULD BE MADE TO SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE AN ASPHALT PLANT AT THIS

LOCATION.

As you can see from the below business information, Southern Oregon Ready Mix is
owned and operated by J.F. Shea. On its face that may not appear relevant.
Mr. Kirk Skierski,
Re: Public Comment: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Southern Oregon Ready Mix Project
July 11, 2020
Page 6 of 7

Operating Out of
Status: ACTIVE Service None
Date:
Legal J F SHEA CONSTRUCTION INC
Name:
DBA Name: SHASTA READY MIX SOUTHERN OREGON READY
MIX
Physical 17400 CLEAR CREK ROAD
Address: REDDING, CA 96001
Phone:

However, 20 years ago Mr. Shea was sued by Dale LaForest because for a number of years his
company had been illegally operating and polluting of a nearby creek.

Mr. LaForest worked with neighbors, and with the help of San Francisco attorneys, actually shut
down the then-existing asphalt plant owned by J. F. Shea Co, Inc. and caused it to be moved away
from its rural location near Gazelle, CA in about 2000. The surrounding homes and ranches had
been inundated with asphalt fumes, smoke, dust, noise and other problems for years. They filed
two lawsuits against the County and the asphalt company (1) for water pollution under the Clean
Water Act and (2) for air pollution under CEQA. That Gazelle asphalt plant owned by J.F. Shea
Co., Inc. was located in an agricultural area where the County improperly issued approvals
without consideration of the local General Plan and Zoning ordinance restrictions against heavy
industry within a Flood Plain, on Prime Ag-zoned land.

The result of that lawsuit was that Mr. Shea signed a settlement agreement stating he would not
locate an asphalt plant within 10 miles of the city limits of the City of Mount Shasta. That lawsuit
forced his company to move its existing asphalt plant away from Gazelle, the site of that illegal
operation. During these intervening 20 years, J. F. Shea has had to set up temporary portable
asphalt plants on State highway locations along I -5, but that arrangement is not as profitable as
having a permanent location, which this could provide.

This history should give the County pause when considering this Project request.
Mr. Kirk Skierski,
Re: Public Comment: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Southern Oregon Ready Mix Project
July 11, 2020
Page 7 of 7

And, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that if this pavement recycling operation is
approved, J.F. Shea might intend to subsequently seek approval for an asphalt plant or a concrete
batch plant at this location once his company doing business as Southern Oregon Ready Mix has
its foot in the door and the site is already approved for similar operations. That suspicion is
backed by the very questionable environmental review which casts great doubt on what they're
saying or describing this project to be. Also, the lack of any existing asphalt plant between Yreka
and Redding, a distance of approximately 100 miles, would give this Southern Oregon Ready Mix
a financial advantage of delivering asphalt at a cheaper price compared to other asphalt plant
companies.

This may not be their intention at all, but it needs to be accounted for and with definitive
language specifically ruled out as a possibility in the IS/MND.

The IS/MND repeatedly draws unsupported conclusions that favor the company and put the
general public and its resources at risk. Those shortfalls regarding air, water, and noise pollution
are outlined with great specificity by Mt. Shasta Tomorrow’s Public Comments identified as
“Additional Environmental Impacts” dated July 9, 2020. Not only are the families living in nearby
homes, Big Springs Creek and Mt. Shasta Fish Hatcher at risk if this pavement recycling facility is
allowed to intrude, but the Zen Abbey retreat would be detrimentally affected by these
unmitigated issues.

I moved to this area in 2008 because of health issues made worse by polluted cities. I value
beyond measure our clean air and water and the beautiful vistas we enjoy –not just in our
immediate vicinity, but also as we travel to Yreka and Oregon.

As has been stated, CEQA requires Siskiyou County to correctly assess the various environmental
impacts this Project may create. The Project’s IS/MND fails to do that. Many fair arguments have
been presented that this Project underestimates the significance of air quality, noise and water
quality impacts it may irreparably cause. It is imperative that an EIR be prepared in light of the
iterated inadequacies.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty J. Kreeger