Shasta County supervisors will reconvene next week to decide if longtime planning commissioner Steve Kerns should be removed from his seat. Kerns, a biologist appointed in 2017, has been a vocal critic of the environmental review process for a proposed solar project in Manton.
Background on the dispute
In January, Kerns and fellow commissioner James Chapin voted against approving a use permit for the Manton solar development, arguing that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required. Kerns compared the solar project’s review to a prior Millville shooting‑range proposal that a judge had rejected for insufficient environmental analysis. He cited Judge Benjamin Hanna’s ruling, which stated that a disagreement among experts warrants a full EIR.
Despite Kerns’ objections, the remaining three planning commissioners approved the use permit, relying on the staff’s environmental studies. The decision was later appealed by the Battle Creek Alliance, which claimed the review was inadequate—a claim Kerns had warned about. Supervisors ultimately voted against the appeal, with Board Chair Chris Kelstrom the sole dissenting vote, noting his support for district residents opposed to the project.
Supervisor action and Kerns’ response
Last month, Supervisor Corkey Harmon placed an agenda item before the Board requesting Kerns’ removal and replacement. Harmon asserted that Kerns wanted to step down, a claim Kerns refuted, saying he would have announced any resignation. The Board deferred a decision, planning to revisit the issue after Harmon could speak with Kerns, who says he has not been contacted.
Board Chair Chris Kelstrom later confirmed that Kerns’ pushback on the solar project’s environmental review was a key factor in the removal discussion, describing Kerns’ approach as “not very pro‑growth.” Kerns countered, noting his record of supporting numerous development projects and emphasizing that his concerns are about legal risk, not opposition to growth.
Political dynamics and potential replacement
Supervisors Allen Long, Matt Plummer and Kelstrom initially backed Harmon’s removal proposal but delayed a vote because Long and Plummer felt Kerns had not been given clear communication. Plummer has since softened his stance, saying he does not necessarily support removing Kerns mid‑term and wants more information on why a civil engineer, Kevin Butler, would be a better fit.
The solar developer withdrew its interest in August, citing the need for a rapid process to remain profitable. The associated lawsuit by the Battle Creek Alliance was also withdrawn as the case became moot.
What’s at stake
Kerns argues that his scientific background adds valuable diversity to a commission largely composed of development‑focused members. He says he will respect the supervisors’ decision but hopes to retain his seat to ensure that future projects meet proper environmental standards.
The upcoming Board meeting will determine whether Kerns remains on the planning commission or is replaced. The outcome will signal how Shasta County balances growth ambitions with environmental oversight.
Original reporting: Shasta Scout (Redding) — read the source article.
