Siskiyou supervisors decline to set hearing on Shasta Way vacation tied to proposed solar array

Siskiyou County planning staff asked the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution of intent to vacate a short segment of Shasta Way so the applicant could pursue a conditional use permit for a proposed solar array, but the board declined to set a public hearing, effectively stopping the road-abandonment process.

Planning Director Haley Lane recapped the item and told the board that planning staff and the Planning Commission had reviewed the proposal and that staff recommended setting a hearing “either at the May 6 or the May 20” meeting. Lane said the Planning Commission found the project conforms to the general plan and that staff had received both support and opposition in public comment letters.

The proposal drew public comment from residents and an attorney representing neighbors. Gaylord Briggs, whose property adjoins the subject parcel, said he supported vacating the road segment and argued the dead-end strip is ‘‘a road to nowhere’’ and would not provide a viable secondary emergency egress. Richard Montoya, who identified himself as a member of an all-volunteer water board seeking to place a solar array to reduce operating costs, urged the board to approve the amendment so the water district could lower power costs.

An attorney identified in the record as Attorney Allison urged the board to reject a resolution declaring an intent to vacate and to direct the Planning Commission to perform “a comprehensive environmental analysis” before further consideration. Allison told the board residents were concerned about an ‘‘800-foot long, 11-foot high industrial scale solar array,’’ runoff and erosion mitigation, aesthetic impacts and fire risk.

County counsel William Carroll explained the board’s discretion under the Streets and Highways Code and the practical consequence of inaction: “If nobody moves to set a hearing, then that will be taken as the board exercising its discretion not to set a hearing. If it chooses not to set a hearing ... then the item will die and that will essentially cancel the road abandonment project.”

Several supervisors said the item had become more complex than anticipated and raised concerns about potential environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Counsel and staff discussed likely timelines and costs for CEQA review: staff said mitigated negative declarations (MNDs) typically take about four to six months and environmental impact reports (EIRs) can take nine months to a year, and quoted preliminary cost estimates (MNDs and smaller studies in the low tens of thousands of dollars; EIRs starting around $30,000 and likely more depending on the scope).

With no motion to set a hearing made, the board took no further action on the road-abandonment request. County counsel characterized that inaction as the board’s discretionary decision not to initiate the abandonment proceedings, ending the item unless a future motion reinitiates it.

The item also raised procedural and project-specific questions staff said would be addressed if the board reintroduced the matter: because the county owns the road, the property owner would typically pay for any required CEQA analysis, and if the road vacation were approved the applicant would still need to apply for a conditional use permit to construct the proposed solar array.

The discussion included neighborhood-safety comments (one resident estimated 45 occupied homes in the subdivision and gave an evacuation time estimate based on local roads) and technical cautions from speakers about whether the unopened right-of-way could be converted into a safe emergency route. The board did not schedule a hearing and the current road-abandonment request will not proceed absent a new motion to initiate proceedings.

Less critical details: staff recommended specific hearing dates if the board had chosen to proceed; the Planning Commission had reviewed the item on Feb. 19, 2025; the project also involves consideration of an existing driveway constructed by an adjoining owner that may affect how abandonment is handled.