Planning commission closes comment period on Coyote Creek draft EIR, directs staff to prepare final document

The Sacramento Planning Commission on April 14 acknowledged the close of the public comment period for the draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Ranch project and voted to direct county staff to prepare a final EIR.

The project, described in the draft EIR as an approximately 200-megawatt alternating-current photovoltaic solar facility paired with a 100-megawatt alternating-current battery energy storage system (BESS) with a planned 35-year operational life, would occupy roughly 2,700 acres along Scott Road (the Barton Ranch site), with about 1,400 acres occupied by photovoltaic arrays, staff said. The DEIR identifies potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics, biological resources and tribal cultural resources, and the public review period was extended to May 5, 2025.

Why it matters: The project pits local renewable-energy goals and grid-interconnection considerations against concerns from tribes and environmental groups about irreversible damage to oak woodlands, sensitive species and cultural resources. The commission’s action authorizes staff to prepare responses to comments and a final EIR; it is not a decision to approve the project.

What the commission did: Planning staff presented the purpose of the hearing as an opportunity to receive oral comments on the draft EIR, recognize the end of the public review period and direct staff to prepare the final EIR for subsequent hearings and decisions. Commissioners asked procedural and technical questions, and the commission then moved and seconded a direction that staff prepare the final EIR. A roll call recorded five aye votes (Commissioners Berger, Devlin, Corona Sabignano, Borja and Chair Conklin); the motion passed.

Public testimony and concerns: Dozens of speakers, including a federally recognized tribal representative and multiple conservation organizations, urged revision and recirculation of the DEIR. Michelle Sinclair, executive director of cultural preservation for Wilton Rancheria, said the tribe has “significant ancestral, cultural and spiritual ties” to the project area and alleged that AB 52 tribal consultation was closed prematurely, depriving the tribe of meaningful government-to-government consultation. Sinclair told the commission the DEIR “fails to identify feasible alternatives, avoidance measures, or culturally appropriate mitigation” and urged reinstatement of AB 52 consultation, evaluation of a culturally viable alternative with reduced ground disturbance, and enforceable long-term protections such as conservation easements.

Conservation groups highlighted biological and hydrological concerns. Speakers from Defenders of Wildlife, the California Native Plant Society, Sacramento Audubon Society, Central Valley Bird Club and 350 Sacramento said the DEIR understates impacts to blue oak woodlands, vernal pools, rare plants and regional habitat connectivity. The California Native Plant Society noted the DEIR reports removal of roughly 4,787 trees (about 4,699 of them oaks, approximately 4,500 blue oaks) and about 287 acres of oak woodland affected, equating to about 54 acres of oak canopy. Defenders of Wildlife and other groups said the project would require extensive blasting and earthmoving, referenced figures in the DEIR (including the DEIR’s description of large-scale excavation/fill and blasting needs), and argued the DEIR’s site-selection methodology and cumulative impacts analysis were too constrained to adequately consider alternatives.

Local landowners and agricultural interests offered competing views. Representatives of the Barton Ranch family and local ranchers described generational ties to the land and said a solar lease could provide revenue to preserve portions of ranching operations and purchase mitigation in other locations. Supporters who spoke of economic or mitigation benefits asked commissioners and staff to weigh long-term land stewardship and the potential to conserve other properties.

Safety and planning questions: Commissioners asked about the BESS facility and fire-safety planning. Staff responded that the EIR’s hazards chapter discusses emergency response and that county Office of Emergency Services and Department of Transportation are coordinating on evacuation and emergency-response planning for the area. Staff noted Sacramento County has an interim planning determination: standalone BESS projects require a use permit to the Board of Supervisors until a broader county framework is completed.

Next steps: By directing staff to prepare the final EIR, the commission started the next procedural step under CEQA: staff will prepare responses to public comments, incorporate necessary revisions and return the final EIR and subsequent project hearings to the Planning Commission and, if appropriate, to the Board of Supervisors. The commission’s vote does not approve the project.

Public record and deadlines: Staff noted written comments should be submitted to the county CEQA email address; several speakers and organizations said they would submit detailed written comment letters and technical reports. The public review period for the draft EIR had been extended to May 5, 2025.

Ending: The commission’s action was procedural — advancing the CEQA record — but the breadth of oral testimony indicates significant public controversy and a likely extended review period as staff prepares responses and any necessary revisions.