Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yakima County commissioners extend moratorium on large-scale solar projects
Summary
After a public hearing that drew farmers and residents, the Board of Yakima County Commissioners voted unanimously to extend a moratorium on moderate- to large-scale solar facilities in unincorporated Yakima County while county planners develop zoning rules.
The Board of Yakima County Commissioners on Jan. 28, 2025, voted to continue a moratorium prohibiting the establishment and operation of moderate- to large-scale solar facilities in the unincorporated areas of Yakima County. The board adopted the extension by unanimous voice vote after a public hearing and a period of deliberation.
Tommy Carroll, planning official with the Yakima County Planning Division, opened the hearing and said the extension would give the planning commission and staff time to prepare materials and zoning options for the board’s future consideration. "This opportunity for folks to give the board their view ... will help guide what we need to address as we move forward," Carroll said.
Members of the public urged the board to renew the moratorium and to develop specific zoning rules rather than leave siting decisions to a state review process. Dave Barta, speaking on behalf of the Yakima Klickitat Farm Association, asked the board to "renew the moratorium" and to "refer the matter to your planning commission and planning department to research, then develop an actual zoning ordinance prohibiting utility scale solar in Yakima County." Barta warned that state-level siting review by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) has overridden local planning in other counties.
Mark Kirkey, president of the Yakima Klickitat Farm Association, described fire and air-quality risks from large array developments and said county topography and seasonal inversions increase the hazard and potential smoke impacts on populated areas. Kirkey also said large solar complexes are industrial in scale and urged protection of irrigated farmland.
An online speaker, Matt Linder, said he supports a moratorium while urging the county to adopt transparent permitting matrices and financial protections for end-of-life recycling. Linder recommended a recycling-fund approach — with incremental fees or escrowed funds collected during a project's operating life — and prioritized permitting for projects that colocate generation with local industrial users.
In deliberations, commissioners said they wanted to protect agriculture while leaving open options for colocated or limited projects on land that is not prime for farming. Commissioner Lindy said the county must "value what is our economic base, which is agriculture," but acknowledged there may be circumstances where combined use can help keep farms viable. Commissioner McKinney said she supported extending the moratorium and developing zoning that preserves agricultural land and allows sensible colocations.
Commissioner Curtis moved to "approve the continuation of the large scale solar moratorium." The motion was seconded (not specified) and carried by a unanimous voice vote of the three commissioners present (3-0). The board recorded no additional conditions in the motion; staff and the planning commission will continue work on zoning and related materials.
The discussion and vote distinguished between the public hearing (testimony and concerns), commission direction to continue planning work, and the formal action to extend the moratorium. Tommy Carroll and planning staff indicated the planning commission had already begun work on zoning options and would continue research and drafting to return recommendations to the board.
The extension does not itself adopt new zoning; it preserves the county’s current review stance while staff and the planning commission prepare proposed ordinance language and findings for future board action.
