Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fresno County upholds Planning Commission approval for Sunrisa solar project, denies appeal
Summary
The Board denied an appeal and upheld Planning Commission approval of the Sunrisa solar project’s permit (Unclassified Conditional Use Permit No. 3677), which allows up to 200 MW of photovoltaic generation and roughly 184 MW of storage.
Fresno County supervisors voted on Feb. 11 to deny an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Unclassified Conditional Use Permit No. 3677, the Sunrisa solar project. County planning staff told the board the project proposes a photovoltaic solar facility up to 200 megawatts and an energy-storage facility with approximately 184 megawatts of storage; the final environmental impact report (EIR) reduced the project footprint by removing three parcels but retained the same generation and storage capacity.
Planning staff said the appeal raised concerns about adequacy of the EIR and asked the county to require a local‑hire guarantee. Staff and county counsel concluded the final EIR did not require recirculation under CEQA because the project’s capacity and environmental conclusions remained substantively the same despite a slightly smaller footprint. Staff also said the applicant had committed to recruiting locally "to the extent feasible" and the contractor had signed a multi‑trade project labor agreement for the construction phase.
Applicant representatives attended and said the contractor for the adjacent, earlier solar project used local workers and that the developer intends to do the same for the Sunrisa project. Timothy Mule, senior director of development for EDP Renewables, thanked county staff for the EIR work and said the project team was available to answer questions.
Several labor representatives spoke in favor of upholding the approval and cited prior local hiring on nearby solar projects and apprenticeship opportunities. Board members noted the applicant’s statements about local hiring but acknowledged the project team’s workforce commitments are not captured in a binding contract; county counsel advised requiring an indemnification and defense clause from the applicant should legal challenges follow.
The board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval; the record reflects the board’s expectation that a defensibility condition (indemnification/defense) be included in approvals as standard practice when appropriate.
