The Sacramento County Planning Commission on Oct. 6 recommended that the Board of Supervisors certify the final environmental impact report (EIR) and approve entitlements for the Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Ranch project, a utility‑scale solar and battery facility proposed on the Barton Ranch along Scott Road south of White Rock Road.

The unanimous recommendation — taken after roughly 42 public speakers and several hours of staff, applicant and public testimony — would send two resolutions to the Board: one to certify the final EIR and adopt CEQA findings and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and a second to recommend issuance of a use permit and special development permits and to find substantial compliance with countywide design guidelines.

The project as presented by county staff would construct a roughly 200‑megawatt solar photovoltaic facility with on‑site energy storage and associated substation and generation tie line on a property that staff described as approximately 2,700 acres overall, with roughly 1,357 acres proposed for solar development. Kimber Gutierrez, principal planner with County Planning, said the facility would have a planned operational life of 35 years and include a decommissioning and site restoration plan. “The project is proposed to be decommissioned at the end of its operational life, and a decommissioning and site restoration plan is included as part of the proposed project,” Gutierrez said in her presentation.

Why it matters: county staff found most impacts could be mitigated but identified three significant and unavoidable effects remaining after mitigation: loss of oak woodland canopy, visual/aesthetic impacts (including views from Prairie City State Vehicular Recreation Area), and impacts to tribal cultural resources within the Tosa‑wen tribal landscape. Staff prepared CEQA findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations concluding that the public benefits — including local renewable energy supply, alignment with the county’s Climate Action Plan and SMUD’s carbon plan, and local job/tax revenue benefits — outweigh the unavoidable impacts.

What the commission heard: commissioners questioned mitigation detail, alternatives and effects on Prairie City SVRA. Julie Newton, the county’s environmental coordinator, described the mitigation approach and its limits: “There is mitigation included, consistent with our zoning code requirements to require screening... but it does not mitigate the change to the landscape.” She said tree mitigation includes a 1:1 preservation or replanting requirement and an on‑ or adjacent‑site conservation easement of roughly 1,150 acres.

The applicant and landowner argued the project will keep the ranch in agricultural use, fund conservations and park improvements, and provide union construction jobs and property tax revenue. William Marisi, director of development for the project applicant, said the developer has contracted with SMUD and framed the project as a substantial local contribution to clean energy: “Coyote Creek is contracted with SMUD to provide an additional 200 megawatts of solar and 400 megawatts of battery energy storage,” he told the commission during his 15‑minute applicant presentation. The applicant also described negotiated conservation agreements with neighboring landowners and proposed contributions to California State Parks and local trail/road improvements.

Public reaction was split. Supporters — including ranch family members, union representatives and local business owners — emphasized jobs, tax revenue and preserving open working lands under the Williamson Act. Opponents included former state park rangers, conservation organizations (Sierra Club, California Native Plant Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Sacramento 350 and others), and users of Prairie City SVRA, who argued the site is biologically and culturally sensitive and that the FEIR understates impacts to oak woodlands, vernal pools, wildlife corridors and park recreation values. Tom Bernardo, a former state park ranger speaking for Sea Spray (California State Park Rangers Association), summarized the opposition’s conclusion: “Sea Spray membership voted unanimously... to oppose the Coyote Creek solar project located on a footprint larger than the entire Prairie City Park. No amount of mitigation can fix it.”

Key technical and mitigation points recorded in the hearing record:
- The FEIR identified three significant and unavoidable impacts: aesthetics/visual impacts, cumulative loss of oak woodland canopy, and impacts to tribal cultural resources in the Tosa‑wen tribal landscape. Staff prepared findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations to support approval despite those remaining impacts.
- Staff reported the project would remove up to 3,493 native trees and result in the loss of roughly 41.36 acres of oak canopy; the applicant and conservation commenters cited alternate counts in FEIR tables (some commenters referenced as many as 4,887 trees in earlier FEIR figures). Staff and applicant said the proposed footprint was reduced by 55 acres between the draft and final EIR to reduce impacts.
- The project as described by staff is a 200 MW photovoltaic facility with a 100 MW battery energy storage system spanning about 1,357 acres of solar development; the applicant made alternative capacity statements during public comment. The project’s planned operational life is 35 years, with conditions requiring reclamation to begin within six months of cessation and completion within 24 months. A decommissioning financial surety (bond or similar) is required by conditions.
- Water use during operation is minimal (staff estimated about 10 acre‑feet per year for panel washing); construction water would be supplied off‑site per the water supply assessment. County staff and the applicant noted a water supply assessment and groundwater review were completed.
- Tribal consultation and a draft tribal cultural resources mitigation plan were discussed; staff said avoidance of documented sites is required and that tribal monitors and protocols will be part of construction measures, but tribal representatives and some tribes told the commission impacts to the tribal landscape remain significant and unavoidable.

Commission action and next steps: the commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of Supervisors certify the final EIR, adopt the CEQA findings and mitigation monitoring program, and approve the use permit and special development permits (see “Votes at a glance” below). The Board of Supervisors is the final decision‑making body for the requested entitlements; the commission’s action transmits the resolutions and staff recommendations to the Board.

What remains unresolved: opponents asked the county to recirculate the FEIR and raised legal concerns about coordination with state parks and the Off‑Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Commission for Prairie City SVRA impacts, hydrology and alternatives analysis (including use of brownfields and previously disturbed lands instead). Several conservation groups urged denial on the grounds that the site is an inappropriate location for industrial‑scale solar.

Why readers should watch: the Board of Supervisors’ final hearing will decide whether the county issues entitlements despite the FEIR’s stated significant and unavoidable impacts. The case highlights the tradeoffs local governments are making between rapid renewable energy deployment and protection of native oak woodlands, tribal landscapes and existing recreation uses.

Votes at a glance: The Planning Commission (recommendation to Board of Supervisors)
- Certify final EIR and adopt CEQA findings and mitigation monitoring and reporting program — Recommended (unanimous).
- Recommend issuance of a use permit and special development permits for PLMP2021‑00191 (Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Ranch) — Recommended (unanimous).