Millville range to Manton solar: How Steve Kerns found his Shasta Planning Commission seat at risk
Earlier this year, long-term planning commissioner Steve Kerns pushed back on the environmental process for a solar project in Manton, referencing a judge’s decision in another project, a proposed Millville shooting range. In August, Kerns found his 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 meetings and several 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, 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 of the proposed solar project 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. When they discussed the matter last month, 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.
Author
Comments (13)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Redding high school students call for tobacco ordinance enforcement
Students called on the Redding City Council to follow through on enforcement of a tobacco ordinance passed last year. Doing so, they said, would help address Shasta County’s high rate of teen tobacco use.
Redding declares emergency in anticipation of El Niño, makes plans to clear congested drainage ditch
The cyclical weather event is expected to bring heavy rainfall to Northern California this winter, something especially worrisome for those who experienced severe impacts from last year’s flooding.
Flock talk fizzles at Anderson council meeting
The council took no action even after Anderson Police Chief Oliver Collins’ acknowledged that the Anderson Police Department had previously granted Flock login access to employees of other agencies, something he described as “wrong.”
Great reporting and research! Very grateful for the inside story. Kudos to David L. for staying on top of this (and many other) key issues. When will decision makers and planners realize that shoving CEQA compliance under the rug in furtherance of blind development interests is a fiscal disservice to all County residents, and not supported by a majority of their constituents??
Parasite… it’s been over. Time and $ is not on his side. All he has left fear mongering but knowing that is to have strength. Nobody is helping him financially. The rats all jumped overboard.
Kerns removal and replacement is on Tuesday’s board agenda.
Redding is really fortunate to have the Shasta Scout doing these excellent articles and focusing on these and other governmental issues in Shasta County. The truth comes out now that the reason Corkey Harmon and Kelstrom want Steve Kerns removed as a planning commissioner was that he followed his oath of office and beliefs to follow the laws of California, in this case the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and vote against a project he did not feel met CEQA requirements.
I can assure the Supervisors that Kerns did nothing to help in the lawsuit that was filed stating that an EIR needed to be complete. I worked with Battle Creek Alliance, who wrote the lawsuit, on fighting this project and I delivered Notices of Intent to the Board of Supervisors. At no time did we contact Mr. Kerns, he followed his conscience and voted no and requested the minutes accurately reflect the issues raised as did a majority of the Planning Commissioners. The only reason I and Mr. Kerns knew he was being removed was my chance reading of the consent calendar on the BOS agenda. I then contacted Mr. Kerns and he said he had no idea he was being removed.
So now we know the real reason Supervisor Harmon knew Mr. Kerns was being removed from office. He followed his oath of office and Supervisors Kelstrom and Harman did not like that and are willing to remove him from his position for that sole and only reason that I am aware of. Actually, Mr. Kerns usually votes for most projects that come to the Planning Commission that I am aware of. Apparently Supervisors Harmon and Kelstrom believe Mr. Butler will vote for the projects they want approved.
Thank you Mr. Ledger for your first-person account. Appreciated. The truth still matters to many of us here in Shasta Co.
Yes, David Ledger is a first class human being who supports truth and safety for us all. We will all be watching and hoping, Mr. Kerns keeps his seat. We need more honest people like him.
Wow the level of deception that Harmon has stooped to is only exceeded by his willingness to be PJ and Crye’s toddie. If this BOS fires Kern’s he will have a mega lawsuit against the county to join the other lawsuits that the 3 stooges have brought upon us. Can Shasta County please quit being a poster child for Trump disfunction and start dealing with the very real problems that our county faces. Enough!
We smelleth Patrick Jones and gun smoke in Millville…
We often wonder if his wild hogs guard is illegal marijuana patch…
We couldn’t contrive these dark thoughts in a covid sweat…
Bring on the environmental report. Let the lawsuits recommence.
There is obviously plenty of crooked shade appearing as some folks shadows.
XX
Steve Kerns did not work with us on the lawsuit. Kelstrom should not be spreading false rumors. Kerns visited the solar farm site and seemed to be the only one who had read the documentation submitted to the Commission (based on his remarks). What Kerns did do is stand up for adequate protection of the environment, and went to the trouble of being sure the Planning Commission minutes honestly reflected what had been said at the meeting. The Commission should not consist of developers only.
Oh my goodness! What a great reporting job you’ve done. The research alone is indicative of your dedication to gathering the facts. Thank you so much.
In the spirit of never forget:
.
The gun range was approved by Kelstrom, Crye, and TIM GARMAN (who betrayed Mary because he wanted to curry favornwith Jones for a raise). Garman went so far as to tour the property and conduct his own man on the street environmental impact report by “walking around for 20 minutes.” The epitome of corrupt incompetence he ranks #1– Tim Garman. A hard title to win considering his competition that year. BRAVO. So glad he has finally slithered off.
.
Patrick Jones was in the news yesterday saying he cant afford to continue w/ the EIR in the wake of the Supe Board’s changing political make-up. Duh. He maxed out his wife’s $ to secure the property and now that the Anselmo is no longer bankrolling lame duck ex-supervisors, the gun range will never happen. Bye bye Jones.
.
Mary voted against the range and abstained from a similar Hawes Ranch zoning issue. She abstained from Hawes vote because her husband and Hawes are close friends. She is the epitome of class, altho she was the only horse in that race. Well done Mary. Your replacement makes you shine brighter every day.
.
Garman ain’t a supervisor anymore, bro.
Don’t discount the Jones tenacity. He has a Nazi friend with a million dollars thanks to Jones. It’s over when it’s over.