Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community groups urge Sacramento County to pause Coyote Creek agrivoltaics proposal near Prairie City SVRA
Summary
Dozens of residents and stakeholder groups urged the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 23 to halt or relocate the proposed Coyote Creek agrivoltaics ranch, citing risks to Prairie City State Vehicular Recreation Area and adjoining oak woodlands.
Dozens of residents and stakeholder groups urged the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 23 to halt or relocate the proposed Coyote Creek agrivoltaics (solar) ranch because of potential, permanent harm to Prairie City State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) and adjacent oak woodlands.
Speakers including Don Amador of the Motorcycle Industry Council, Tom Bernardo of the California State Park Rangers Association (SeaSpray), Jane Arteaga, a retired Bureau of Land Management recreational planner, Rose Wynne of the California 4-Wheel Drive Association, Sean Worth of the Sierra Club Mother Lode chapter and David Wright of 350 Sacramento told the board the project’s draft environmental impact report (DEIR) is legally and procedurally deficient and that the site selection is inappropriate adjacent to the state park.
The commenters said the DEIR understates or fails to analyze key impacts including removal of large numbers of blue oak trees, scenic-viewshed losses, harm to wildlife corridors and vernal pools, and procedural shortcomings such as omitted stakeholders and inadequate scoping. SeaSpray told the board its membership voted unanimously on Sept. 17 to oppose the project at this location; several speakers said they submitted long, detailed comment letters during the DEIR public comment period and argued the document must be recirculated.
“Prairie City SVRA is more than just open space,” Jane Arteaga said, describing family and community uses and saying the DEIR “admits scenic impacts to Prairie City is a significant unavoidable” effect. Tom Bernardo said SeaSpray’s review found removal of “over 3,200 blue oak trees” and “permanent viewshed reduction” and urged the county to oppose a project sited beside the park.
Several off-highway vehicle (OHV) users emphasized the park’s training, events and recreational value and urged the board to visit “the highest spot in the park” to view the project area before acting. Conservation groups described an extensive DEIR comment letter (the Sierra Club reported a nearly 80-page submission) and asked the county to delay review to allow a revised environmental analysis that addresses changes to project scope and omissions in stakeholder outreach.
County staff did not deliberate on the off-agenda public comments because the project is not on that day’s published agenda; Supervisor Serna reminded the public that Brown Act constraints prevented an immediate substantive reply. Staff identified a tentative date when the board will consider the project: Nov. 18, 2025.
The project proponents and county planning staff have previously released a DEIR and a later final environmental document is expected; public commenters asked that any revised or recirculated environmental analysis be followed by an OHMVR (Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation) Commission public hearing. Speakers requested a minimum of 30 days between release of a final environmental document and the planning commission or board review so stakeholders can prepare meaningful comments.
The board did not take any formal action on the project at the Sept. 23 meeting; speakers were told the matter will return to the board on a future agenda for formal consideration.
