Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shasta board upholds Planning Commission on Battle Creek 3 MW solar project despite intense local opposition
Summary
After a contested public hearing with dozens of speakers raising environmental, visual and road‑access concerns, the Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 to affirm the Planning Commission’s mitigated negative declaration and approval of a 3 MW, ~376‑acre photovoltaic array near Manton (Use Permit 24‑0009).
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors on March 24 affirmed the Planning Commission’s approval of Use Permit 24‑0009 for a 3‑megawatt, ground‑mounted photovoltaic array near Battle Creek Bottom Road, voting 4–1 to deny an appeal by Battle Creek Alliance.
Appellants and many residents told the board the environmental analyses were insufficient. Appellant Mary Ollie Woodhouse and multiple scientists argued preconstruction biological surveys were too brief, that CDFW recommended additional protocols (including more extensive species‑specific surveys and a wetlands delineation) and that the project’s impacts on oak woodlands, connectivity for wildlife and pollinators warranted a full Environmental Impact Report under CEQA. One local resident said that mature native oak habitat and rare plants would be removed and would not recover within the project’s 30‑year term.
Applicant and staff response: A Renewable Properties representative said the project sits on approximately 376 acres but will use a 25‑acre lease area for arrays, cited surveys already completed, noted the Planning Commission had adopted an initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) in January, and described mitigations added after public input (oak woodland mitigation, visual buffering, revised vegetation management). Staff told the board the project would connect to PG&E’s distribution system under the REMAP program, which favors smaller distribution‑level projects.
Board rationale and vote: The board’s legal standard on appeal was whether the Planning Commission exceeded its authority or failed to conduct a fair hearing. Several supervisors emphasized procedural review of the Planning Commission record; Supervisor Kellstrom, whose district includes the project, said he would vote no on upholding the Planning Commission because he had heard strong concerns from constituents and was not satisfied that mitigation was adequate. The motion to uphold the Planning Commission carried 4–1 (Supervisor Kellstrom voted no).
Local concerns raised: Residents cited proximity to homes (panels as close as 75 feet to residences in the site plan shown), potential effects on private wells and groundwater during construction, vehicle and equipment loads on a long dirt access road and small bridges, loss of visual privacy and reduced property values, and potential impacts to salmon restoration work in the Battle Creek watershed.
What’s next: With the board upholding the Planning Commission, applicant preconstruction surveys were described as next steps, but opponents indicated they may pursue legal avenues or seek additional administrative review of CEQA findings.
