San Bernardino supervisors deny appeal, uphold Planning Commission approval for Sienna Solar project
Loading...
Summary
After hours of testimony from residents, environmental groups and labor unions, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors voted to deny an appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Sienna Solar Project, a proposed 525-MW solar and 525-MW battery facility in Lucerne Valley. Appellants raised CEQA, scenic-highway and dust concerns; the board found no legal basis to overturn the approval.
The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 3 denied an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Sienna Solar Project, upholding the commission's certification of the project's environmental impact report and conditional use permit.
The project, proposed by Avantis LLC, would permit up to 525 megawatts of photovoltaic generation and up to 525 megawatts of battery energy storage across a footprint the county describes as roughly 1,854 acres in the Lucerne Valley area. Land Use Services Director Miguel Figueroa and planning staff told the board the county analyzed multiple gen-tie routes and concluded the EIR and mitigation measures met CEQA requirements.
Why the board acted: The board's legal standard when hearing an appeal is whether the Planning Commission record contains a legally sufficient basis to overturn the prior action. After hearing extended presentations from the appellant, the applicant and more than two dozen members of the public, several supervisors said residents' concerns about community impacts were compelling but not presented in the record as a legal defect requiring reversal. Chair Rao noted, "If it were about how I feel, it would be a different situation," and explained the board must identify a legal flaw to remand the item.
What appellants said: Steve Bardwell, representing the Morongo Basin Conservation Association and co-appellants, argued that the Sienna approval violated the county's Renewable Energy and Conservation Element (RECE) policy 4.10 and that the project's relocation expanded scope beyond any application that had been vested. Bardwell told the board, "We're appealing this because we feel that it does indeed violate REC E 4.10," and argued the EIR failed to analyze visibility from the portion of State Route 247 that was designated a state scenic highway prior to later steps in the county process. Appellants raised dust-control, water-use and cumulative-impact concerns and asked the board to treat Sienna as a new application.
How the applicant responded: Will Gagan, senior manager of development for Avantis, said the company and county followed the board's earlier vesting/relocation authority, and that the project remains consistent with the applications deemed complete in 2017'2018. Gagan said the EIR evaluated multiple gen-tie alternatives and that site-specific details such as exact gen-tie alignment and final equipment choices are to be selected before building permits, not at the EIR stage. On dust, he said the project will submit a "comprehensive dust mitigation and control plan" and implement phased, small-segment construction practices.
Public testimony split the room: Opponents focused on visibility from SR 247 after its scenic designation, health risks from windblown dust, degraded desert soils and the potential for further industrialization of Lucerne Valley. Supporters — including building-trades union representatives and Southern California Edison's representative — emphasized local jobs, apprenticeship opportunities and regional grid needs; union leaders said peak construction could employ hundreds and cited county economic benefits.
Board action and next steps: Supervisor Hagman moved to deny the appeal; Vice Chair Baca seconded the motion. The board voted to deny the appeal and leave the Planning Commission's approval intact. The decision preserves the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR and the conditional use permit as approved. County staff noted decommissioning, closure and revegetation plans remain required by county code and must be approved prior to building permits.
What remains unresolved: Appellants said they will continue to press legal and administrative concerns, particularly about scenic-highway protections and dust-monitoring requirements. The board concluded the procedural path taken by staff and planning met the legal standard needed to uphold the Planning Commission action.
ACTIONS: Motion to deny appeal (mover: Supervisor Hagman; second: Vice Chair Baca). Motion outcome: appeal denied; Planning Commission approval upheld.
