Planning commission recommends supervisors approve abandonment of Bailey Hill Road

Planning commissioners on an otherwise routine agenda voted unanimously to recommend that the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors approve a proposed abandonment of Bailey Hill Road (RA-2502) and determine the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Guidelines §15061(b)(3).

The action matters because if the supervisors follow the recommendation the county will be clearing the way to transfer fee title or easements for 1.28 miles of paved frontage road adjacent to Interstate 5 near Exit 793; the transfer could change who has maintenance responsibility and who can restrict access to the roadway.

Senior Planner James Phelps summarized the proposal to the commission. "This project, as you stated, is a proposed road abandonment located at Exit 793. It's the Bailey Hill Road, Lemus Road exit on I-5 heading north towards Oregon," he said. Phelps told the commission the road set on roughly 17.25 acres of AG-1 land is 1.28 miles long and that Caltrans traffic counts for that stretch of I-5 show about 8,400 vehicles daily. Staff identified three required findings the commission must recommend for the supervisors to approve: consistency with the general plan, that the road is not useful as a non-motorized transportation facility, and that it is not necessary for present or prospective public use.

The applicant and a primary proponent, Steven Charles, spoke in favor. "The main reason we want this is for security. We've been robbed several times," Charles told the commission, describing break-ins, vehicle thefts and other trespass-related problems on and near the road. He said the property owner would honor existing easements and that the railroad has leased or allowed access for maintenance.

Staff noted six legal parcels along the road: four owned by the applicant, one owned by Southern Pacific Railroad, and one owned by the R Ranch Property Owners Association. Written comments from Caltrans raised concerns about ensuring Caltrans vehicles can perform maintenance near the top of the ramp; Caltrans also expressed a preference that the county not require a public gate where Caltrans needs turnaround space. Cal Fire submitted written comments recommending transfer of a bridge and placing maintenance responsibility on the new owner; commissioners raised concern about shifting substantial bridge-upgrade costs to a private owner without clarifying funding or permit requirements.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about ownership and the sequence of transfer. County staff and County Counsel explained that state law does not require a public sale in every case and that, procedurally, the board of supervisors typically sets terms and conditions for transfer—often ensuring transfer of title and any required easements are coordinated so abandonment does not create an access gap. County Counsel told the commission that "abandonment would likely occur at the same time as transfer of title to the property," and that the county would not abandon the road while leaving access unresolved.

Commissioners also pressed several clarifications from staff that were entered in the record: the county currently receives an annual maintenance allocation from the state for the road (staff gave the figure as $3,668 per year), the road crosses a railroad, and there is a vehicle bridge at the site that the proponent described as narrow (about six feet wide). Commissioners discussed that some uses (horse riding, occasional parking in storms) may have occurred historically and that a determination on non-motorized utility or future public use is a discretionary finding supported by evidence either way.

After discussion Commissioner Mello moved to recommend approval of the abandonment and to recommend the board find the project exempt under CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3); Commissioner Veale seconded. The commission recorded a 5-0 vote: Commissioners Hart, Mello, Lindler, Veale and Chair Fowle voted yes.

If the supervisors accept the recommendation, county staff told the commission the board will later set conditions for transfer, and the road would not be formally abandoned until title transfer and any required easements or terms are resolved. The staff report and public record include written comments from Caltrans and Cal Fire; any conditions from those agencies will be considered by the Board of Supervisors during the formal abandonment and title-transfer process.

Meeting participants and staff emphasized that the planning commission’s role was to evaluate the three required findings and recommend action to the Board of Supervisors; questions about final transfer mechanics, tax consequences and long-term bridge maintenance were described as part of the supervisors’ subsequent review and negotiation.

Ending: The commission’s recommendation will go to the Board of Supervisors for final action; the project is subject to a 10-calendar-day appeal period at the county clerk’s office and an appeal fee of $1,250, as stated in the public notice provided at the hearing.