Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Energy Siting topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission conditionally approves Foxtail Solar 55 MW array and 55 MW battery storage

3097103 · April 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Tulare County Planning Commission voted to adopt a mitigated negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act and conditionally approve Special Use Permit PSP24-065 to allow a 55-megawatt solar array and a 55-megawatt battery energy storage system on agricultural land near Road 80 in Tulare County.

The Tulare County Planning Commission voted to adopt a mitigated negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act and conditionally approve Special Use Permit PSP24-065 to allow a 55-megawatt solar array and a 55-megawatt battery energy storage system on agricultural land near Road 80 in Tulare County.

David Alexander, a Planner III in the Tulare County Resource Management Agency (RMA) project processing division, told commissioners the project would occupy about 450 acres of a roughly 475-acre parcel at 18839 Road 80, Tulare (APN 220-850-20), in the AE-40 zone and within the Rural Valley Lands plan. Alexander said the application includes a developer agreement that will require a reclamation plan and financial assurances and a sales-tax agreement intended to locate point-of-sale activity in Tulare County.

The project is proposed by Foxtail Solar Incorporated (agent listed at an address in Cerritos) on behalf of property owner Joe V. Cardoza III and will be sited on the west side of Road 80, roughly 6.6 miles southeast of the intersection of State Route 99 and State Route 137. Alexander said county staff mailed public notice to surrounding landowners and published notice in the Exeter Sun-Gazette; no written public comments were received before the hearing. County divisions and outside agencies were notified for consultation, including Tulare County Environmental Health Services, Public Works, Fire Department, Code Enforcement, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (District 4), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 5), the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, California Public Utilities Commission, California Department of Conservation, Edison International and the Tulare County Farm Bureau.

Commissioners asked about fire and chemical-release hazards associated with large battery installations after a recent high-profile battery fire elsewhere. A representative from the Fire Prevention Division said there are “code requirements that require docking, damming and containment facilities” and that battery projects must comply with building and fire codes and environmental regulations before construction permits are issued. The Fire Prevention Division added that the project will undergo “a pretty extensive review process prior to issuing permits.”

The staff report and project materials state the zoning ordinance (Tulare County Ordinance No. 352, as amended) and board resolutions applicable to energy facilities, and identify mitigation and permit conditions including a reclamation plan to return land to agricultural condition, financial assurances based on an engineer’s estimate for reclamation, stormwater pollution prevention and dust control measures, removal and recycling of equipment at project end, and a sales-tax agreement for maximizing local tax capture.

Commissioner Bill Laguna moved to adopt the mitigated negative declaration and conditionally approve Special Use Permit PSP24-065; the motion was seconded by Whitlatch. The motion passed 7–0 with one commissioner absent. The approval is conditional on the developer agreement, reclamation plan, required environmental mitigation measures and subsequent building and fire-permit reviews.

Project opponents or supporters did not appear during the public comment period; representatives of the project team (identified in the record as a Samsung/Foxtail Solar team) and county staff were present at the hearing to answer questions.