Airport land-use panel approves two industrial solar projects near March Air Reserve Base amid glare concerns

The Airport Land Use Commission unanimously approved staff findings of consistency for two industrial development applications that include large rooftop and parking carport solar systems near March Air Reserve Base.

In separate votes the commission approved ZAP1627MA24, an application by Lowe's Home Center LLC with representative Green Skies Clean Energy to install a 229,227-square-foot rooftop array plus seven carport structures on an 18.5-acre site at 3984 Indian Avenue, and ZAP1629MA24, an application by Thrifty Oil Company with representative Johnson Aviation to build a 185,912-square-foot manufacturing building with a 151,440-square-foot rooftop solar system and eight carports on 9.89 acres. Staff planner Jackie Vega told commissioners both projects meet the relevant compatibility-zone intensity limits and that the projects do not exceed FAA obstruction height thresholds.

The staff glare analyses, prepared with Air Force flight-path input and dated in the record, showed only "green-level" glare under the FAA interim glare methodology — a classification staff and the commission have treated as acceptable in prior reviews. Vega noted the solar panels proposed for both projects currently are uncoated and that anti-reflective or textured panel options may be considered in a forthcoming March Air Reserve Base compatibility-plan amendment. She recommended the commission find both applications consistent with the 2014 March Air Reserve Base Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to conditions.

At the public hearing commissioners and members of the public pressed staff on cumulative glare and pilot safety. An unidentified commissioner said, "I can't think of a worse place for solar panels" given proximity to short-final on Runway 32. Staff replied the methodology reported only green-level glare and reiterated that the commission has not seen orange or red-level glares in the studies presented to date.

Ben Hausman, speaking to the commission, said the panel will "break ground" on how cumulative glare is assessed and described worst-case scenarios in which a pilot could pass through many separate "cones of glare" on a single afternoon. He urged the commission to weigh trade-offs among uncoated, coated, and textured panels, noting coated or textured panels may increase construction and maintenance costs while reducing reflectivity.

Commissioners also noted that the Air Force reviewed the glare studies (comments dated 11/26/2024 for item 3.1 and 12/17/2024 for item 3.2) and raised concerns about cumulative impacts and panel type; staff said those Air Force comments are part of the record. The commission approved both consistency findings by voice vote with all members present voting in the affirmative.

The commission directed staff to continue work on cumulative-impact reviews and to develop an educational workshop on glare methodology and options. Staff indicated the workshop is being organized to explain how solar projects are reviewed, possible mitigation measures (including panel coatings and tilt/angle adjustments), and potential policy changes to the March compatibility plan.

The meeting packet identifies several conditions of approval and a complaint mechanism: if an approved project later produces glare that creates a safety hazard at the airport, conditions authorize corrective measures or removal of the hazard by the property owner, per the planning conditions reported by staff.

Next steps: staff will prepare and convene the planned workshop on cumulative glare and will proceed with any required compatibility-plan amendment work. The approvals can be subject to the conditions noted in the staff reports and remain subject to enforcement procedures should a future safety complaint be filed.