Millville range to Manton solar: How Steve Kerns found his Shasta Planning Commission seat at risk

Steve Kerns has sat on the Shasta Planning Commission since 2017, when he was appointed by former Supervisor Mary Rickert. He’s been reappointed multiple times, most recently for a four-year term slated to end in January 2029.

It wasn’t until last month that Kerns suddenly found his seat at risk, when Supervisor Corkey Harmon brought forward a board agenda item asking for his removal and replacement. 

Supervisors argued over the matter at an August meeting where Harmon claimed Kerns had wanted to step down, despite Kerns published comments that if he had wanted to step down he would have. The board deferred a decision, agreeing to discuss the potential of replacing Kerns again at a later meeting after Harmon had time to have a conversation with Kerns, who had not been informed that he might be removed. 

The board is slated to discuss the matter next week, but Kerns told a reporter yesterday that he hasn’t heard from Harmon or anyone at the county since the last board meeting occurred. Harmon did not respond to a request for comment but Board Chair Chris Kelstrom confirmed that he hasn’t spoken to Kerns saying he believed Harmon would.

During the last board meeting it remained unclear why Kerns was being removed. Harmon and Kelstrom said he’d done a good job. And Kerns had made clear he wanted to remain in his seat. 

Seeking to understand the history behind the decision, Shasta Scout reviewed a commission meeting audio recording along with minutes from a number of commission meetings and items of county correspondence, which revealed Kerns’ concerns about an environmental review for a Manton-based solar project. In January, Kerns was one of two commissioners — along with James Chapin — who opposed approving the use permit for the solar project.

In response to questions about that project, Shasta County Board Chair Chris Kelstrom confirmed this week that Kerns’ pushback on the environmental review for the solar project was a key reason he was being considered for removal, saying he found Kerns’ approach, “not very pro-growth.” Kerns has disagreed with that claim saying his record shows that he has supported many development projects.

Kelstrom also claimed he’d heard that Kerns may have been working with citizens who filed a lawsuit over the solar project, though he acknowledged that the rumor was unbacked by any evidence. Kerns also denied that claim, saying he only heard about the lawsuit against the solar project a few weeks ago, months after it was filed. 

How the solar project connects to a controversial shooting range 

The problems began last January when Kerns compared the environmental process for the solar project to that of a highly politicized Millville shooting range project proposed by former Supervisor Patrick Jones that was later pushed back by a judge due to inadequacies in the environmental review process.

Kerns told his fellow commissioners in January that, based on specific details in the judge’s ruling against the shooting range project, he believed more environmental review was needed to satisfy the law. He read from Judge Benjamin Hanna’s ruling which said that a disagreement among experts would be enough to necessitate that a full environmental impact report, or EIR, should be done. Based on that history, Kerns said, approving a use permit for the solar project without a full EIR would put the county at legal risk. 

Only Chapin agreed with Kerns, and the three other planning commissioners ultimately voted to approve a use permit for the solar project. But that vote didn’t occur until after one of them, whose identity isn’t clear from the county’s audio recording of the meeting, asked Chief Deputy County Counsel Trisha Weber whether it was even the planning commission’s role to decide whether an EIR was needed. 

Weber, who sat in at the meeting in order to provide legal counsel to commissioners, didn’t answer the question, instead redirecting it to Assistant Director of Resource Management Lio Salazar. He too punted, saying that planning commissioners could choose any of the recommendations in the staff report, again without answering the question directly. State documentation indicates that when it comes to use permits, it is the role of the planning commission to decide whether an EIR is needed.

Nevertheless a use permit for the project was approved based on the environmental studies done so far. Within a few months that decision was appealed, with the appellant claiming, just as Kerns had warned, that substantial evidence submitted during the review process indicated that environmental review had been inadequate. 

Supervisors discussed the appeal during a March board meeting. They were informed of the commission’s decision-making process using draft minutes supplied by county staff which had not yet been approved by the planning commission. Comments shared on the record by Kerns and Chapin during the original January planning commission meeting were significantly abbreviated in those minutes, and no mention of the shooting range ruling was included at all. 

---

---

Using those minutes and other materials at hand, supervisors voted against the appellant, the Battle Creek Alliance, saying they believed  the planning commission had acted within its role. Only Kelstrom voted to uphold the appeal, saying he didn’t personally have concerns about the project at all but supported residents in his district who opposed it. 

Not long after, the Battle Creek Alliance filed a lawsuit against the county over the project, but by August the business behind the solar development had withdrawn its interest, citing the need for a quick process to ensure profitability, something that now looked unlikely. The withdrawal of the company behind the solar project occurred just weeks before Harmon suggested that Kerns should be removed from office. The lawsuit itself has also since been withdrawn as it’s now moot.

Supervisors are still facing a decision about whether to remove Kerns from his seat, something they’re scheduled to discuss next week. In August, Supervisors Allen Long, Matt Plummer and Kelstrom supported Harmon’s decision to remove Kerns, but delayed a vote to approve the decision because Plummer and Long were concerned that there hadn’t been clear communication with Kerns. 

Since then, Plummer has changed his mind, saying he doesn’t necessarily support removing Kerns from office mid-term and wants to hear more about why he should be removed and why the community member slated to replace him, civil engineer Kevin Butler, would be a better choice. 

As for Kerns, he said he hopes to maintain his seat because he believes his professional insight as a biologist offers diversity on the board, which is largely made up of those connected to development. But, he added, he’ll respect the will of supervisors when it comes to who should hold the seat.

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.