The Highland Plains Shooting Range proposed by Supervisor Patrick Jones in the eastern Millville Plains passed on a 3 to 1 vote on October 24 following a packed five-hour contentious meeting. The supervisors approved a zoning change to Commercial Recreation (C-R), the same zoning change proposed for the Hawes Ranch amusement center.
The gun range will be on a small section of a 157-acre parcel but will have a large effect on the surrounding environment and the neighbors in this rural area. It is located several miles west of Parkville Road just north of Dersch Road in an area over vernal pools and wetlands with the eastern portion containing Bear Creek, a salmon spawning creek. The project will include a pistol range, shotgun range, and a high-powered rifle range with onsite camping for RV’s and travel trailers, a clubhouse, and shooting contests with up to 500 participants. It will be open 5 days per week from 8 am to 8 pm depending on the season.
SEA submitted a detailed written statement opposing the project primarily focused on the Biological Survey although other aspects of the project will have serious negative impacts on wildlife and people in the area.
Plant surveys under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require certain protocols such as visiting a project site several times during the blooming season. A plant survey was done on January 21 and February 18 when the plants would not be blooming. After a requirement by the Planning Department, a third survey was done on May 26, after 29 days of no rain and several days of 100-degree temperatures, which is another failure to follow CEQA protocols and failure to conduct a plant survey during the blooming period. Naturally, no rare, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species were found. The consultant Steven Kerns even admitted that almost all of the plants were “brown.”
Marily Woodhouse Director of Defiance Canyon Raptor Rescue, a licensed raptor rescue and rehabilitation specialist, submitted a long report about the close vicinity of eagles to the proposed gun range and the distress it would cause them (For a copy of Marily’s letter with detailed information on eagles in our area, go the link here). Terry Lhuillier, head of Friends of the Redding Eagles also submitted a letter of opposition because of nearby Bald Eagle nests.
For the final vote, Patrick Jones had to recuse himself but Tim Garman, Keven Crye, and Chris Kelstrom all voted yes. Mary Rickert was the sole “no” vote.
The Commercial Recreation zoning regulation allows almost any development that can be tagged recreation to be developed in rural areas, adversely affecting residents of the area by noise, traffic, lights, and degradation of wildlife habitats. It is unfair to affected residents who specifically moved to these areas because of the solitude, quiet, and beauty of certain rural areas, all to be destroyed for commercial profit.
Is there any action being taken or being developed that could either halt this development or any future developments in our rural areas?
Right now, that we know of, there aren’t any specific ways to halt this development. You might consider still reaching out to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to let them know your opinion on developing in rural areas overall as well as about this specific gun range development.
There IS a way to halt this particular project, and that is to file a lawsuit within the appeals period… which may be coming to an end shortly.
Will there be an EIR conducted by an impartial entity?
There certainly are many reasons to continue to fight this misrepresented project:
1. At the hearing I testified to multiple critical deficiencies in the Mitigated Negative Declaration review that, based on my 30 years professional work on projects where CEQA was required, this should never have made it out of the Planning Commission without a requirement to do an EIR.
2. It is presented as a “new” project, when in fact the proposal is a request an expansion of a use permitted to a landowner in 1997 wherein an agreement between with the county said he could operate as a “non-conforming use” in the rural residential area. However, one caveat of that agreement was that “the use shall not be expanded.” That means just what it says: expansion of the nonconforming use SHALL not occur. Just by submitting this project through the County Zoning Change Ordinance is an outright violation of that 1997 Agreement which allowed the nonconforming use as it stood in 1997. This project is fraudulent.
3. Support efforts to make the County conduct an EIR, including looking for any go-fund-me site working to pay legal fees to put this before a Superior Court judge so evidence can be presented in support an order for the County to perform an EIR before doing any further work on this.
4. Write to the California Attorney General about these violations of law. The more letters they receive, the greater notice will eventually be. People must speak out against these egregious violations of the public trust, or eventually they will have to live with the consequences of maintaining silence. And we then lose our democratic way of life. We all get to choose our own path forward.
Comments are closed.