agus, 2017 ity of Mount Shasta HAND DELIVERED 305 N. Mt, Shasta Bouvard ‘Mt Shasta, CA 96067 Ref.: Initial Study/MIND for the Freeze Mini Storage and Car Wash Project, ‘due August 11, 2017, ‘Attn: Juliana Lucchesi, Mt. Shasta City Planner Dear Ms. Lucchesi Please accept these comments by the Mount Shasta Trall Association Board of Directors concerning the Freeze Mini-Storage and Car Wash Project. As you know, the Tral Association has several projects inside the city of Mt. Shasta. We believe these trai projects are community assets that add considerably tothe quality of life in Mount Shasta. When we plan and build these projects, we expect development to occur consistent with existing zoning. We do not believe thatthe presence of a tral facility should limit development. We do believe however that developers should consider existing tells in their plans, and work with the Trail Association and the Cty of Mt. ‘Shasta ta develop mitigations where It's reasonable and appropriate to do so. That has not happened inthe Freeze Min-Storage and Car Wash Project. ‘The Mount Shasta TrailAssociation and the many people who walk on the Spring Hill, Trail would be impacted because the parking and trailhead forthe Spring ll Trail are immediately adjacent tothe Freeze Mini-Storage and Car Wash Project. The Spring ll trail was built by the Tall Association for public use and enjoyment. Although the Spring Hill parking area.and trail are on private land owned by Chrystal Geyser, there Is. ‘an casement granted te the Mount Shacta Trail Actociation and held by the Sickiyou Land Trust that allows rublic access to the parking area and trail. Thisis 2 popular trailhead where many Feople come to walk. We believe the project as presented would adversely afect both the parking area and the tral. The Tral Association has not been ‘contacted by the proponent for input about mitigation of project impacts on the Spring Hil Tall Me Shasta Trail Association * P.O. Box36 * Mt Shasta, CA 96067 tuna mountshastatrailasociation.ongMt Shasta Trail Association “The Mitigated Negative Declaration notes the presence of the Spring Hill trailhead and parking area, but falec to provide any meaningful discussion of potential impacts or possible mitigations toreduce the impact of the mini-storage on these facilities. There are two environmentalconsequence subsections of importance tothe Tral Association where we believe the enalysi filed ‘The first area of importance to the Trail Association isthe subsection of Chapter 4 ‘concerning aesthetics. The analysis notes “less than significant” impact for criteria C, hich asks ifthe project would “Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ‘quality of the site and ts surroundings?". The fence forthe storage facility would literally be a few feet from the Spring Hil Tail until the trall switchbacks up the hil, Coming down the trall,users would look directly down on top of the development instead of at the currently open field. We disagree with the finding that this is “ess than significant” impact. The presence ofthe mini-storage and associated fence completely changes the character ofthe trallhead and the user experience both climbing and descending the tall. We believe the impact on aesthetics is “significant” and the _mitigations to reroute the tal to avold the project area would be appropriate. A simple alternative exists to reroute the tral east ofthe parking lot, away from the development. ‘The second area of imortance to the Trall Assocation isthe subsection of Chapter 4 concerning traffic. The analysis notes “no impact” on criteria F which asks whether the project would “Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilties?”, The designated entrance to the facility appears to Impinge on the parking area for the trahead. We do not agree that there is “no effect” on parking for the trailhead or the potential traffic flow. We believe the impact on trailhead parking, traffic flow and safety is potentially significant and must be mitigated by constructing, additional trail head parking. A simple solution to this is to change the parking configuration so that tail users could park on the east side of trailhead loop. This would ‘match the realignment ofthe trail proposed inthe aesthetics section. Insummary, we believe the Mitigated Negative Declaration is fatally flawed because the proponent has not taken the hard look required by CEQA and has underestimated effects that require mitigation. The aesthetics ofthe tall would be significantly affected by the close proximity of the fencing since the property boundary i right next to the tral. Parking and trafic flow would be significantly affected by the proposed access to MeShasta Trail Association * P.O.Box36 * Mt Shasta, CA 96067 maw mountshastatrailassociation onsMt Shasta Trail A\ ‘the storage facility and the assoclated traffic pattern. There are no miigations proposed in the projec: for these significant impacts. We ask that the CEQA document be revised to accurately reflect impacts, and that mitigations be required for both aesthetic impacts and traffic / parking so that the integrity ofthis significant community resource ie maintained, ‘Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, t At. Whe ay Ot eo President, Mount Shasta Tral Association MeShasta Trail Association * P.O. Box36 * Mt Shasta, CA 96067 mw mountshastatrailassociation.org,