During a heated session of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, Planning Commissioner Steve Kerns was voted out of his seat. The vote, split three‑to‑two, saw Board Chair Chris Kelstrom and Supervisors Corkey Harmon and Kevin Crye in favor of removal, while Supervisors Matt Plummer and Allen Long opposed it.
Kerns’ Appeal to Remain on the Commission
Kerns, a soft‑spoken biologist, addressed the board directly after rumors circulated about his potential resignation. “I’ve never mentioned to anyone my interest in stepping down,” he said. “I don’t have an interest in stepping down.” He emphasized the importance of a diverse commission, noting that he and fellow commissioner Jim Chapin bring a resource‑management perspective, while other members represent development and construction backgrounds. Kerns argued that this mix provides a “balanced approach” to land‑management decisions.
Board Decision and Rationale
Despite Kerns’ testimony, the board moved forward with his removal. Chair Kelstrom had previously criticized Kerns for pushing back on the environmental review of a proposed solar project in Manton, labeling the stance as not “pro‑growth.” The solar project was later withdrawn, but Kelstrom maintained that Kerns’ opposition was the reason for the removal vote.
County Counsel Joseph Larmour intervened when Supervisors Plummer and Long attempted to discuss the basis for the removal, stating the decision was “without cause.” Larmour also described the discussion as a “grey area” under the law, prompting Long to cease his questioning.
Disputed Claims and Board Dynamics
Supervisor Harmon, who initiated the removal effort last month, had previously claimed Kerns wanted to step down—a claim Kerns denied. Harmon later apologized for any miscommunication, insisting the removal was not a firing. He also indicated an intention to appoint civil engineer Kevin Butler to the vacant seat at the next meeting.
Supervisor Crye asserted he had supported every other supervisor’s appointee, a claim that was challenged as inaccurate. The exchange highlighted the board’s internal disagreements over procedural norms, with Plummer reminding colleagues that the board does not “blanket approve” appointments and must vote on each supervisor’s nominee.
Implications for County Planning
The removal of a commissioner with a resource‑management background raises questions about the future balance of expertise on the planning commission. Kerns’ supporters argue that his scientific perspective is vital for evaluating land‑use projects, especially as the county navigates renewable‑energy initiatives and development pressures.
With the commission now missing a member, the board must fill the vacancy promptly to maintain quorum for upcoming planning decisions. The outcome may influence how the county approaches environmental reviews, growth policies, and the composition of future commissions.
Original reporting: Shasta Scout (Redding) — read the source article.
