Sacramento County holds public scoping meeting for Coyote Creek agrivoltaic project EIR

Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review and consultant AECOM held a public scoping meeting to gather comments for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Ranch Project, a 200-megawatt solar facility proposed on roughly 2,555 acres south of U.S. 50 near Rancho Marietta and adjacent to the Prairie City State Vehicular Recreation Area.

"The county has contracted with AECOM to prepare the environmental document for this project," said Lisonbee Little, an associate planner with Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review. Little said the county released a Notice of Preparation and that the 30-day comment period closes on February 18 (year not specified in meeting materials). AECOM staff present included project manager Steven Smith and project director Matthew Gerken.

Gerken described the proposal as a utility-scale solar facility with a on-site substation, energy storage and a 1.3-mile off-site transmission line to tie into an existing SMUD facility. He said the project would include photovoltaic panels on tracking systems, power conversion stations, battery storage with about 400 megawatts of capacity as presented, meteorological towers, backup generators, internal access roads and fencing. The transmission line would be supported on roughly 150-foot poles and could require easement changes that affect a portion of the Prairie City SVRA. The project’s operational life was described as about 35 years with a decommissioning plan to restore the site after operations.

The draft EIR will evaluate topics identified in meeting materials, including aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, biological resources and consistency with the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan, climate change, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hazards, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise and vibration, transportation and wildfire. Gerken told attendees the final scope of analysis will reflect input from the public and agencies.

Public commenters raised site-specific concerns. Scott Lowridge, a nearby landowner who identified himself as owner of Scott Ranch, said he supports the project in principle but asked the county and applicant to include enforceable conditions and milestones in the EIR for topsoil handling, revegetation and monitoring. "We are, at this time, in favor of the project," Lowridge said, then asked that the EIR describe stockpiling and redistribution of topsoil, measurable milestones for native-grass recovery under panels, and contingency plans if revegetation fails. Lowridge also cited a soils report and a figure mentioned in meeting remarks that the project would require about 3,400,000 cubic yards of cut and fill (as characterized by the commenter) and questioned whether revegetation would be feasible across areas of shallow topsoil and gravelly sands.

A county staff member said County Water Resources has asked the applicant to prepare a drainage study; the county will review that study when submitted. Lowridge suggested the drainage study consider options to collect runoff for landscaping irrigation or livestock water.

Resident Pamela Payan raised concerns about wildlife movement and glare. She asked whether the proposed fencing would block black-tailed deer travel corridors. County staff replied that the preliminary design currently proposes fencing that would exclude wildlife from solar arrays and that the question has been forwarded to environmental staff to consider alternatives. Payan also said she had reviewed the project’s glare analysis and expects reflections could affect nearby homes; staff said glare will be evaluated through peer review and included in the EIR technical analysis.

Meeting staff directed attendees to additional project materials on Sacramento County’s planning project viewer and to submit written comments to the contact listed in the Notice of Preparation; staff also offered sign-up for the project CEQA mailing list. Nate Dobrinick, identified in the meeting as the planner for the project, and other county staff said the design review advisory committee (a publicly open meeting of three architects) would discuss design aspects at a separate meeting.

No formal actions or votes were taken at the scoping meeting; the session was an opportunity to gather input for the EIR scope and for agencies to identify issues to analyze. County staff and AECOM said a draft EIR will be prepared after the Notice of Preparation comment period closes and will be circulated for a second public comment period before the matter advances to the Planning Commission and the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

The meeting record shows recurring public concerns the EIR will need to address: fencing and wildlife passage, topsoil management and revegetation feasibility, drainage and potential reuse of runoff, glare and visual impacts, grading and construction truck traffic, and potential impacts to the Prairie City SVRA related to transmission-line easements. County staff noted the applicant will submit technical studies (including a drainage study and a glare analysis) that AECOM will peer review and incorporate into the EIR analysis.

For those seeking materials or to submit comments, meeting presenters said the planning project viewer on the county website and the contact information on the Notice of Preparation are the primary sources for project documents and for signing up for CEQA notifications. The comment period cited in the meeting materials closes on February 18 (year not specified).