Planning commission recommends abandoning short Shasta Way segment to clear path for Monte Shasta water co. project

The Siskiyou County Planning Commission voted unanimously at its February meeting to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the abandonment of a short, unused segment of Shasta Way (RADash24-01), a move proponents say is necessary to advance a Monte Shasta Mutual Water Company solar project and to resolve local utility and septic siting issues.

The commission’s recommendation, adopted 5-0 by voice and roll call, also asked the board to determine the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). The recommendation now goes to the Board of Supervisors for final action and for two additional findings staff said the board will need to address: prospective and current use of the parcel and whether bicycle or pedestrian use would be prohibited if the road is abandoned.

Proponents at the public hearing, several of whom identified themselves as current or former directors of the Monte Shasta Mutual Water Company, said the water company needs the parcel to reduce operating costs and increase resilience. “My rates were going up $1,200 a year,” said Roger Emerson, a Mount Shasta resident and former water company board president, citing recent increases in his electricity rate as part of the rationale for the planned solar installation. Water board members said photovoltaic power would reduce long‑term energy costs and let the system run pumps during power outages.

Other speakers described the parcel as an underused strip of former road base that does not function as a public roadway. “It looks like an abandoned gravel pit that is of no benefit to anyone,” said Richard McDowell, a long‑time resident and water board member, arguing the parcel’s transfer would benefit about 100 subdivision members. Board members and supporters pointed to a petition of 53 residents and 30 letters of support submitted to the board as evidence of neighborhood backing for the abandonment.

Opponents, while acknowledging the water company’s service record, urged the commission to consider fire egress and visual impacts and to seek alternative solar sites. Leslie Legro, a nearby resident who said she has lived on Shasta Way for more than 30 years, said she would prefer that any abandoned roadway be converted to an additional evacuation route and expressed concern about visibility and property values if the land were developed for the solar project.

Commissioners asked county staff and a representative from Cal Fire questions about evacuation options and existing easements. Kent Cunningham, deputy chief of operations for CAL FIRE and deputy county fire warden, said the subdivision predates later road and egress regulations and that the area currently has a single practical evacuation route; alternative extensions such as Monroe Drive include public easements and private land issues that make a through route unlikely without additional, complex actions.

Planning staff told the commission the request before them was narrowly to find general plan conformity for the road abandonment; any development on the resulting parcel or easements for a solar installation would return to the county for any necessary permits. Staff also noted public works reviewed the proposal and that the packet contained roughly 35 pages of objections and supporting documents from both sides.

Motion and vote: Commissioner Mello moved to adopt Resolution PC2024023 recommending the Board of Supervisors approve road abandonment RADash24-01 and find the project exempt from CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). Commissioner Beal seconded. Roll call: Hart—Yes; Mello—Yes; Lindler—Yes; Beal—Yes; Fowle (Chair)—Yes. The commission recorded the recommendation as unanimous (5–0).

What happens next: The commission’s action is a recommendation. The Board of Supervisors will make the final decision and will also consider the additional findings staff flagged (prospective/current use and bicycle/pedestrian impacts). Appeals of board actions are governed by the county clerk; staff noted a 10‑calendar‑day appeal period for projects heard by the planning commission.