Kittitas County hearing draws debate over 90-megawatt Schnebly Coulee solar proposal

The Kittitas County hearing examiner on Feb. 26 heard roughly two hours of testimony for the Schnebly Coulee solar power production facility, a proposed 90-megawatt project spanning about 1,314 acres and sited primarily in the county’s Solar Overlay Zone 3. Community Development Services staff described the application and the code interpretation issue that will largely determine approval: how to read the ordinance phrase “routine view” in Kittitas County Code 17.61C, which governs screening and fencing for solar facilities.

The project, filed as conditional use application CU24-0003 and led by developer Invenergy, would place solar panels primarily in agricultural zoning (Ag-20) with a transmission corridor to the east. The applicant says roughly 695 acres would be fenced as the buildable area and proposes interconnection at the Poison Springs switch yard via about a 3.6-mile transmission line. The applicant provided a habitat management plan, cultural resources survey and other studies. The county issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on Oct. 15, 2024; that MDNS was not appealed.

Why it matters: the hearing centered on two linked questions—whether the project meets the county’s land‑use and development standards, and how to apply the screening/fencing standard that requires being “consistent with the surrounding character” and to limit routine public views of the facility. Staff told the examiner that how the term “routine view” is interpreted will determine whether the project meets both the specific development standards and the conditional‑use review criteria.

Jeremy Johnston, Community Development Services, told the examiner the county’s code places the panels largely in Solar Overlay Zone 3 with a portion in Zone 2 and described the project timeline: application submitted April 9, 2024; deemed complete May 6; site posted May 14; MDNS issued Oct. 15, 2024. Johnston said the applicant has submitted critical‑areas, wildlife and cultural resources reports and that staff are proposing additional conditions if the hearing examiner approves the permit.

Abi Light, the applicant’s authorized agent for Invenergy, summarized the company’s plans and benefits. "This project would generate over $17,000,000 in tax revenue for the county over a 25‑year life," Light said, and described the company’s mitigation work with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), its plan to use wildlife‑permeable fencing, and an agreement to consolidate panels in some areas to reduce habitat fragmentation. Light told the examiner the buildable area would be fenced to meet the code’s minimum 8‑foot height requirement and that Invenergy proposes fencing and fencing openings consistent with WDFW guidance.

Public testimony split roughly between residents and conservation practitioners raising concerns about shrub‑steppe habitat, local wildlife and long‑term restoration, and community members supporting jobs, local revenue and renewable energy. Several speakers identified species or ecological values they said require stronger mitigation or different siting.

Adrienne Slade, a wildlife biologist who said she has surveyed the Vantage area, testified: "I am pro solar, but I am against any solar that requires habitat destruction, especially of endangered ecosystems like the shrub steppe." She cited research and field experience indicating shrub‑steppe recovery after grading can be slow and recommended relocation planning for low‑mobility reptiles, such as the pygmy short‑horned lizard, which she said appears on the site’s species list.

Jordan Rickman, coordinator for the Sagelands Heritage Program at Conservation Northwest, said the site is "in an area of high conflict identified by WSU’s least‑conflict solar study" and that the project area is predominantly native shrub steppe. "The conservation easement and restoration activities on a nearby property may help offset some impacts, but this project will still result in a net loss of habitat," Rickman said, urging strong monitoring and mitigation if the county permits the project.

Several nearby residents described impacts they fear from proximity to the facility, including viewshed loss, dust during construction, potential increased fire risk from construction vehicles, light at night, and possible property‑value declines. Greg Carey said his home sits on the proposed property line and cited studies he said showed property‑value impacts within a quarter‑mile of solar installations; he asked that the county consider the close proximity to residences in its decision.

Supporters who testified said the project would bring construction jobs, some long‑term operations work and recurring tax revenue. David Toram, a local teacher and graduate student, said the project would provide jobs and revenue for local schools and described the climate benefits of utility‑scale solar. Several speakers noted Invenergy’s past work in the county, including the Vantage wind farm, and praised community contributions cited by the applicant.

On the legal and code questions, the applicant’s counsel, Richard Allen, asked the examiner to read the fencing/screening standard as a single development standard to be satisfied by wildlife‑permeable fencing that meets WDFW specifications. Allen told the examiner the applicants have proposed an 8‑foot wildlife fence similar to nearby reclamation‑district fencing and said screening by vegetation is not feasible on unirrigated seasonal grazing land that has no irrigation rights.

Hearing examiner Andy Kotcamp (hearing examiner) cautioned that his role is to apply the county code and that he cannot ignore code language or reopen the unappealed MDNS. Kotcamp told attendees: "The environmental determination was never appealed," and said he cannot order a new SEPA determination or an environmental impact statement because the MDNS stands. He closed public testimony, admitted exhibits (records identified in the staff index plus several late comments), and said he will issue a written decision within 10 working days; appeals of his decision must be filed as a land‑use petition within 21 days of issuance.

What remains: the examiner highlighted interpretation of the term "routine view" in Kittitas County Code 17.61C as the pivotal legal question for whether the project satisfies the development standards that are incorporated into conditional‑use criteria. Staff asked the examiner for guidance on that interpretation. No final permit decision was made at the hearing; the record was closed for oral testimony, late written exhibits were admitted, and the hearing examiner reserved decision.

Ending note: the hearing examiner said he will prepare written findings and a decision within the 10‑working‑day period required by county code; that written decision will state any conditions if the permit is approved and will trigger the 21‑day appeal period for land‑use petition actions.