Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Abandonment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Siskiyou supervisors vote to initiate Bailey Hill Road abandonment proceedings
Summary
After a request from a private property owner, county staff outlined legal findings and costs related to abandoning 1.28 miles of Bailey Hill Road; the Board voted to initiate proceedings to consider abandonment and further study impacts.
The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 on May 6, 2025, to initiate proceedings to consider full abandonment of Bailey Hill Road, a roughly 1.28-mile paved roadway that runs adjacent to Interstate 5.
Planning staff described the legal process under the Streets and Highways Code: the county may initiate abandonment proceedings and must make specific findings, including conformity with the Siskiyou County general plan, effects on non-motorized transportation, and whether the roadway is unnecessary for present or prospective public use. Staff said their initial review found conflicts with the general plan and noted the road appears necessary for present and prospective public use in some circumstances, including emergency detours when I‑5 is closed.
Staff provided preliminary data: Caltrans 2023 annual average daily traffic (AADT) on I‑5 adjacent to Bailey Hill Road is 8,400; annual county revenue associated with the section was estimated at about $2,400 while five‑year average maintenance spending was about $1,710. Public Works staff estimated deferred maintenance and a required chip-seal project at roughly $50,000–$60,000, and a bridge on Bailey Hill Road was described as being in fair-to-poor condition with a very rough repair estimate of about $700,000.
Property owner Steve DeClerk told the board he and his family are the only property owners on the road and offered to assume responsibility for maintenance and the bridge if the county abandons the roadway. “We will take full responsibility and save the county some money so they won't have to chip seal every 10 years,” DeClerk said.
Public Works Director Tom Meaney confirmed procedural next steps: if proceedings are initiated, the planning commission will hold a public hearing, perform the analysis required by statute (including CEQA review), and then may recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve or deny abandonment. Staff said they would likely evaluate a facilities exemption under CEQA but that further analysis is required.
On a motion to initiate proceedings, the board voted in favor (four ayes, one no). The board’s direction authorizes staff to proceed with the planning‑commission phase of the abandonment process and to return with the analysis, public hearing scheduling, and any recommended findings. No final abandonment decision was made at the May 6 meeting.
The action begins a statutory process; staff emphasized the need for further study of public‑use implications, infrastructure disposition (including the bridge), funding impacts (loss of gas‑tax revenue), and CEQA compliance before any final board decision.
